The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence

Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, before business begins, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to undertake an important departmental visit on Thursday, 5th October, when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Sierra Leone: British Military Commitment

Lord Burnham: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are the nature and extent of the British military commitment in Sierra Leone.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the nature and extent of British military commitment in Sierra Leone are as the Foreign Secretary set out in another place on 6th June; namely, the provision of training and advice to ensure that the democratically elected Government of Sierra Leone have effective, accountable armed forces. Such armed forces are essential if there is to be lasting peace in Sierra Leone.

Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply which might have been the response on 6th June. However, much time has passed since then. With the end of the monsoon season in about a week's time, will the Government make an up-to-date Statement about the current military situation in Sierra Leone? There are a large number of questions to be asked. Most importantly, what steps are being taken to develop the Sierra Leone army command structure? If that is not satisfactory--it does not seem to be--will the United Kingdom be required to take it over?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am not surprised that the Answer is similar to that which would have been the case on 6th June because the policy has not changed. But we shall keep the matter under review. I am unaware of any specific request from the Front Bench opposite for a Statement; I may be wrong. However, if there is such a specific request, no doubt that can be discussed through the usual channels in the normal way.
	It is relevant that the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, have been invited to the Ministry of Defence for detailed briefings in confidence on some of the more security sensitive aspects of British activity in Sierra Leone. I have no doubt that they will to take up that invitation as soon as possible.
	On the chain of command, the noble Lord will know that IMATT--the training team, which is being established under Brigadier Gordon Hughes and other key staff in Sierra Leone--will be addressing the questions which the noble Lord rightly identifies as key to the future health of that country's armed forces.

Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge that the skill and commitment of our forces is recognised not only in Sierra Leone but throughout the Commonwealth? Does the noble Baroness agree that it would be a sad day if we were to interpret British interests so narrowly that we were not prepared to come to the help of a democratic government in a former colony, especially one which has been confronted with such appalling atrocities?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree entirely with what the noble Lord says. If I may say so, he states the Government's position eloquently. The situation is being kept under constant review. Not only is the training team in place to look at the chain of command and some of the longer-term issues about the armed forces in Sierra Leone to which we are committed; short-term training teams have also been put in to look at ways in which 1,000 Sierra Leone troops can be trained at any one time. I am happy to say that we have completed two such courses and that a third is under way. I do not think that there can be any doubt about the commitment of Her Majesty's Government in this respect.

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Chiefs of Staff accept that the present level of personnel and the quantity of equipment supplied are adequate for their task of retraining the Sierra Leone armed forces?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I believe that the Chiefs of Staff believe that the personnel and equipment are adequate for the current task. What is under constant review is whether the security around the training teams is adequate; and whether there are other operational matters which would change our view about the number of British Armed Forces committed to Sierra Leone. As the noble Lord, Lord Wright, would expect, these matters are not set in concrete at any one time. They are kept under constant review by the Chiefs of Staff and, of course, by Ministers.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may return to a question that I asked some time ago. It is fully understood that these matters are always kept under constant review. However, what do the Government propose to do in conjunction with the government there to control the diamond fields, because unless some positive action is taken, I think that the noble Baroness will agree that there is little hope of making much progress?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord is entirely right. Part of the root of the dreadful conflict in Sierra Leone is the exploitation of diamonds. I am happy to say that Britain has taken a lead in the international community's efforts on the issue. We have been a key player from the start in the South African-led Kimberley process, which has recommended an international rough diamond certification scheme. We have also led the way in pushing for a UN Security Council ban on the import and export of Sierra Leone rough diamonds not certified by the Government of Sierra Leone. Not only are we doing what we can on the ground, we are making efforts to control the diamond trade, which has been at the root of so many of the appalling atrocities that we have seen in Sierra Leone.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, in reply to Questions, Ministers have said that we are supplying arms to the forces that we train in Sierra Leone. Who is supplying arms to the rebels and what steps are being taken to stop that supply?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. When we have supplied arms, it has been in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1171. The shipments have also been notified to the UN sanctions committee. I shall write to the noble Lord with whatever information I can put into the public domain on arms supplies to the rebel forces. However, I hope that he understands that a great deal of that information is likely to be intelligence-sensitive and security-sensitive, so it may not yet be possible to give as full a reply as I should like. Armed conflict continues in Sierra Leone. There are 300 British troops there engaged in the tasks that I have outlined to your Lordships. We should not wish to put in the public domain any information that might in any way jeopardise their security.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, will the Minister say something about the relationship between the British forces in Sierra Leone and the United Nations? I have been puzzled by various remarks from Conservatives calling for British troops to withdraw and leave it to the United Nations, as if the UN had nothing to do with this country. We are a permanent member of the Security Council. Does the Minister recall her colleague, the right honourable Clare Short, saying some weeks ago that the peacekeeping operation in Sierra Leone was a test case for the future effectiveness of the UN in its peacekeeping role?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, the UK troops in Sierra Leone are not part of the United Nations mission in Sierra Leone. The UNAMSIL troops come from a variety of countries. I am sure that the noble Lord knows which countries have contributed what, but I shall be happy to write to him with details. Our main task in Sierra Leone is training to ensure that the Sierra Leone armed forces of the future will be responsive to a democratically elected government. We do not stand completely outside UNAMSIL in that task. Of course there is proper liaison with UNAMSIL troops and of course we notify UNAMSIL of our troop movements and expect to have notification back. I am sure that the noble Lord also knows that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has been in contact with Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and that we keep the provision of our Armed Forces under review in that respect. We have proper liaison both on the ground and through my right honourable friend and his contacts with the United Nations.

Oil Prices: Role of European Commission and IEA

Lord Ezra: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are the respective roles of the European Commission and the International Energy Agency in the light of the current high oil prices.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, both the European Commission and the International Energy Agency provide opportunities for Ministers and officials from all member states to discuss experiences and exchange information on issues relating to the oil market. The European Commission has no specific remit on oil prices but co-ordinates member state discussions on a wide range of areas from energy supply security to competition in the motor fuel sector. The International Energy Agency's objectives are to provide independent analysis and factual information on crude and petroleum product markets, to maintain a system for coping with a major oil supply disruption and to maintain contact with non-members and international organisations on energy developments.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that information. Does he agree that volatility in oil prices is likely to persist and will continue to cause serious disruption? In those circumstances, does he agree that the Government, in conjunction with our partners in the EU and the IEA, should consider longer-term solutions than the emergency measures now being contemplated? Should not such solutions include a serious effort to encourage the use of alternative fuels in the transport sector, such as natural gas and electricity, for which the technology has been fully developed? That would have considerable climate change advantages and a suitable regulatory framework would be needed to encourage such developments.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, crude oil prices are likely to remain volatile. There are no obvious long-term solutions that would prevent such fluctuations, particularly as in this case the problem is caused by particular disruptions on the product side as well as the imbalance between demand and supply--which obviously one can do something about. It goes without saying that in the long term we must continue to develop alternative technologies and sources of energy, because that creates greater diversity, which is essential.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, did the Minister see a graph on this subject in the Financial Times a couple of weeks ago? It showed that at the beginning of each recent decade--1969-70, 1979-80, 1989-90 and today--there has been a sudden rise in the wholesale price of oil. Has his department done any analysis to determine why that happened--he has explained today's hike, but not previous ones--and, more importantly, why the price subsequently came down?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am afraid that the answer is very simple, as it is on almost all such questions about supply and demand. This House will understand that with a commodity such as this, which can be traded and where supply and demand shift, this issue will arise constantly. It is interesting that in this House not more than 18 months ago we were talking about low oil prices. Many people made the point that we had perhaps entered a new era of low oil prices. It is interesting that today people are saying that we are entering a period of very high oil prices. The reality is that over that period there have been ups and downs relating to supply and demand and no fundamental change has taken place in the underlying structure of that particular industry. Therefore, I believe that this issue does not require more than a simple analysis of supply and demand.

Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Opposition have suggested that 3p should come off the price of petrol. Does the Minister believe that that is a suitable response to the price of oil?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, Mr William Hague made a very good point on that particular issue when he said on 13th September 2000:
	"We would not cut taxes today because there has been a protest yesterday. You can't run the country like that".
	Apparently, that policy lasted about one week.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the original Question. I was a little puzzled by the Minister's description of the work of the International Energy Agency. It is an excellent organisation and one which a long time ago I had the privilege of chairing. It co-ordinates within the OECD all the interests of the oil-consuming countries, including all the European countries. Can the Minister explain more clearly what European Union involvement brings to the party and what value it adds? From the reports that we have had it seems that the pronouncements from the European Commission have rather destabilised the situation. Is it really helpful to have this fifth wheel on the coach?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I believe that one must be clear that the International Energy Agency remit is restricted to four particular areas: co-operation on energy conservation and alternative energy sources; information on international oil markets; co-operation with oil-producing and oil-consuming countries to develop stable international energy trade; and planning against risk or major disruptions. I do not believe that there is consensus within that body as to any action that it should take on market carnet. However, as I explained at the beginning, the EU has very little remit on this issue other than that which comes from the question of the directive relating to countries holding supplies for emergencies.

Lord Islwyn: My Lords, particularly in the current situation, would it not be helpful if Iraq were brought back to full production? Can the Minister confirm that America is now buying Iraqi oil hand over fist, albeit through third parties?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, clearly anything which increases the supply of oil will help this particular situation. However, whether that is desirable is, of course, another question.

International Treaties: Parliamentary Scrutiny

Lord Thomson of Monifieth: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they support the creation of a Select Committee to scrutinise international treaties concluded outside the framework of the European Union before they are ratified by the United Kingdom.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the creation of Select Committees principally is a matter for the relevant House of Parliament. The Government are open to considering ways of contributing to efficient and effective parliamentary scrutiny of treaties, as we made clear in evidence both to the Royal Commission's inquiry on the reform of your Lordships' House and to the inquiry into the parliamentary scrutiny of treaties by the Procedure Committee in another place.

Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I thank the Minister a little for that Answer. However, could not the Government give a stronger lead on this issue? Has not the matter been seriously delayed since my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill first raised it in this House? Is this not an ideal matter on which the House of Lords, with its very good reputation for dealing with the consequences of the European treaties, could exercise more widely the parliamentary role of scrutiny as regards treaties? Will the noble Baroness remember that, in these days of old Labour and new Labour, one of the oldest of the Labour Party's commitments in international affairs is to have parliamentary scrutiny of treaty-making?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reminder but I hope that he will take it well when I say that in fact no such reminder was needed for Her Majesty's Government. The Government are aware of the recommendation in the report of the Royal Commission that the Liaison Committee should consider the establishment of a Select Committee to scrutinise treaties and of the recommendations in the report by the Procedure Committee in another place. Both reports are still being considered and the Government will respond in due course. If requested to do so, the Government will, of course, make a contribution to any inquiry by the Liaison Committee. This is very much a matter for the Liaison Committee and I believe that everyone in this House knows that the issue will be in safe hands.

Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, in the course of the evidence given jointly and in agreement by the German and French ambassadors before your Lordships' House Select Committee on European matters, it was announced that, if necessary and acting jointly, France and Germany would proceed to draft treaties at the second level without bothering governments at all? Does not the noble Baroness consider that we need to be exceptionally vigilant that matters which affect our own status within the European Union are discussed and agreed at the proper level rather than below the top level?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can reassure my noble friend that Her Majesty's Government are being very vigilant in relation to those matters. My noble friend will be aware that there are special procedures for EU treaties which provide for scrutiny through the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union and its sub-committees and the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee as well. I suggest respectfully that it is an achievement of this Government that instruments in the inter-governmental field of common, foreign and security policy and justice and home affairs are now subject to scrutiny through the introduction of the scrutiny reserve.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the chronology or timetable? I introduced the Bill into the House four years ago in February 1996. Ten Members of your Lordships' House gave evidence to the Select Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, in support of there being a treaty scrutiny committee in this House. As the noble Baroness indicated, while saying that it was unnecessary for the other place to have such a committee, in July this year the second report of the Procedure Committee of the House of Commons effectively commended the recommendations of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. Those recommendations stated that we, as a House, are capable of scrutinising treaties, with retired Law Lords, retired members of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and other Members of the House who are expert in this matter being well suited to the role.
	Finally, is the noble Baroness aware of the principle of the unripe time, which teaches that one should not do today something which needs to be done today on the ground that the time is unripe and it should therefore be done tomorrow or next year?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I say straightaway that I am aware of the chronology. Perhaps I may commend the noble Lord for his assiduous efforts since 1996. He has, indeed, pursued the matter with great energy and vigour to good effect. I am aware of the Procedure Committee's recommendations and that the report stated that the idea of a Select Committee in this House may have merit. The noble Lord will know that, when the Liaison Committee comes to consider this issue, it will be a matter for that committee. I hope that since 1997 the Government have demonstrated their total commitment to scrutiny. The explanatory memoranda that now go with the treaties have greatly enhanced the ability to scrutinise. They have been made available and are being used extremely well. Your Lordships should be certain that Her Majesty's Government will continue to look for ways in which they can assist and ensure that open government is a reality.

Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, as a graduate from old Labour, perhaps I may invite my noble friend to confirm that it is government practice not to defer undertaking treaty obligations in international law until Parliament has indicated its approval of the consequent legislation. Would it not be a way of facilitating and expediting that process if a Select Committee could examine the implications and assure Parliament, in a proper case, that the obligations were appropriate ones to undertake?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, there may be much force in what my noble and learned friend says. It is a matter for the House and its sub-committee. If the Liaison Committee felt it was appropriate, it could invite the House to set up such a committee. It is not appropriate for me to comment on that. It is a matter for the House and I have, as I am sure everyone else in this House has, every confidence that the Liaison Committee will look at this matter with the appropriate degree of concern, energy and erudition, in the way that it has dealt with other matters before.

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is it not the case that the Liaison Committee has been looking at this issue and the matter has been put aside pending the result of Commons discussions as to the possibility of a joint Select Committee between both Houses? Would it not be better if the Commons got back to work and then we could move on with those matters?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, there are many in this House who would endorse the noble Lord's comment about the Commons getting back to work, particularly since everyone in this House is working so hard. But in due course we shall have that advantage. When the House of Commons returns, we shall be able to take forward those matters. I am sure that we all long for that day when we are joined by our colleagues in the other place.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, while the noble Baroness is right to say that this is indeed a matter for the House, will she give the House an assurance that the Government will do nothing to impede a decision by the House to set up such a committee?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord knows better than I, having been in this House for some considerable time, that Her Majesty's Government can do nothing in relation to frustrating the way in which this matter is dealt with. I also commend to the noble Lord's attention the robustness and vigour which goes with the membership of any committee of this House. He will know that everyone here will be vigilant to make sure that the Government do not trespass in an inappropriate way.

Women's Representation in UK Politics

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the conclusions reached in the report Women's Representation in UK Politics: What can be done within the Law (Constitution Unit, University College, London) will help them to implement their obligations as stated in the Beijing Platform for Action.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the Government have made it clear that they wish to look at ways of increasing the representation of women in Parliament. The Constitution Unit report referred to in the Question suggests that it may be possible for political parties to take positive action to achieve that without incurring a successful legal challenge. The Home Office will examine carefully those proposals to see whether legislation can be introduced.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's reply. I hope that noble Lords from all sides of the House will join in putting on pressure to ensure that the Home Office sees that as a priority. Of course, it is not just in Parliament but also in local councils throughout the UK that women are vastly under-represented. I am sure the Minister would agree that it is not that there are fewer able and talented women but it is simply that there is still an invisible wall and a culture which has prevented them coming through.
	Does the Minister agree that the Government must act rapidly so that we do not go into another election, and perhaps the one after that, with the same situation? Parties should be willing to take positive action and should not be afraid of doing so. Parties unwilling to take any action--and this morning, the Conservative spokeswoman sounded as though her party does not want to take any action--should be unable to hide behind the pretence that they are unable to do so.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Baroness that this is a question of culture change as well as of changing the law. As I said in my original Answer, the Government are asking the Home Office to look at the possible changes to the electoral law which might bring about further action. My party stands very firmly on its record of having achieved 101 women Members of Parliament and having achieved around 50 per cent of women representatives in both the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. It is instructive that both the noble Baroness's party and the Conservative Opposition are represented by only 8.5 per cent of women membership in the House of Commons. I hope that the noble Baroness will not take it amiss but it was not an indication of culture change in her party when the woman MP who led for the Liberal Democrats on those issues was replaced by a man.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, will my noble friend join with me in expressing extreme concern at the attitude of Theresa May, the shadow Minister for women's issues, who said on BBC Online on 6th September:
	"I do not believe that young women who wish to have families should consider a parliamentary career until their families are in a position where they can easily be left".
	Does my noble friend agree with me that the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, may not agree with that since she came into the House when she was 34, when her twins were six?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I cannot do better than my noble friend has done in pointing out that somewhat anomalous position between the history of the Conservative Prime Minister who was a woman and the remarks of the present spokesman. This is a very serious and important issue. All parties need to look at their electoral practices and selection processes to make sure that the most able people are selected in seats which are winnable, whatever their gender.

Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister see any force in the point that I made years ago that we should be able to think we had reached somewhere on this point when a woman was at the Ministry of Defence and a man was spokesperson on women's issues? Does she agree further that it is part of the reputation of Parliament to put this matter right? That is something which is far above party and should be of urgent concern to us all?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, yes, I certainly agree with the noble Earl's last comment. That was the point I made in my initial responses when I said that the Government were asking for the electoral law to be looked at in that context. I am delighted that my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean is here, representing the Ministry of Defence. She is an illustration of precisely what the noble Earl is looking for.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, before the noble Baroness preens herself too much on her party's 101 Blair babes, perhaps I may remind her--and does she not agree?--that the first lady Leader of this House was my noble friend Lady Young on the Conservative side and the first lady Prime Minister of this country, and indeed the only one to date, was my noble friend Lady Thatcher. Perhaps she can tell me when she thinks there may be a Labour lady leader.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I suspect it would be a woman leader. Of course, I accept what the noble Lord said. I have made it clear on many occasions, both privately and in this House, how grateful I am to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for the helpful suggestions that she has given to me in this role.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, is the noble Baroness the Leader of the House aware that under the law as it stands, there is great scope for the political parties to take effective positive action; that if they do not do so, they may well be liable for indirect discrimination? That applies to race as well as sex discrimination. Does she agree with me that one way of securing much better representation for women and for the ethnic minorities would be to have a proportional system of voting?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I know that this point is made fairly regularly from those Benches when this issue is discussed. Of course I am aware of the concerns which the noble Lord expresses. As I understand it, the helpful point made by the report referred to in the noble Baroness's question is that one could achieve a different degree of positive action by political parties under the electoral law rather than the employment law, which has impeded the progress which the Labour Party was trying to make and which, as I am sure the noble Lord is very well aware, was challenged successfully in the courts. As I said, we believe that it is most worth while to pursue a solution in the direction of electoral law.

Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
	Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House in Committee accordingly.
	[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
	Clause 1 agreed to.
	Clause 2 [Aims of the Service]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 2, line 8, at end insert ("and of property").

Baroness Blatch: The amendment groupings that came from the Home Office only this morning scooped up large proportions of the Bill into one set of groupings. There were some six clauses and more than 39 amendments together so I make no apologies for saying that we are talking about many different issues. The distinction between the issues is important and must not be overlooked.
	Amendment No. 1, which inserts the words "and of property" is important. In another place, the Minister refused to reflect on the issue and refused to report back. In a debate on 4th April 2000, in Standing Committee G, recorded in cols. 7 to 9, he said:
	"it is always important to bear in mind the extremely damaging impact of property crime on the public. Whether it is a crime against a person or a property crime, it is a crime against the public, and whether the property is private or public, it is still a crime against the public".
	My modest amendment puts it beyond doubt that the service, and those who practise within it, must have regard to the protection of the public and their property.
	Many noble Lords will know that a great deal of damage is done to business and domestic property. We also know that invariably it causes much distress, especially in the case of arson or burglary. As this is the first amendment to the Bill perhaps the Minister will be more accommodating than his friend in another place in order to clarify and to put beyond doubt the fact that the Government are concerned about the protection of people and their property.
	As I understand it, the argument put in another place was simply that any damage to property is damage to the public. That is accepted, but they are different; for example, damage to property has little to do with the local community, but nevertheless it will cause some repercussion, whether economic or personal, and it seems to me that this issue must be taken seriously. This amendment gives the Government the opportunity to add the word "property" to this part of the Bill, and will show that they are concerned about people and property. I beg to move.

Lord Dholakia: I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, which makes a lot of sense. In considering the aims of the probation service it is right and proper that we should not just look at matters relating to persons, but also to those relating to property.
	I suspect that if the Minister were to examine crime figures he would find that the matters of property damage and property theft and so on feature highly, particularly when he looks at matters like theft from cars. The police seem to have given up on such matters.
	When the Crime and Disorder Bill was discussed in this House, particularly in relation to racial matters and harassment, the Attorney-General was supportive of a move on my part to look at the matter of racially aggravated criminal damage against property. That issue caused a certain amount of concern in the community. I believe that we should seriously consider the matter of property being included in the aims of this clause.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her kind comments on the groupings. We like to believe that we have been as accommodating as we can be. I trust that the debates will be reasonably well focused. It is also important to ensure that we have sensible groupings. No doubt we have arrived at such a situation.
	On Amendment No. 1, I well understand the concerns about crimes against property. Such matters have to be taken seriously. Crime against property is a crime against the community. However, in this Bill we are talking about the aims of the new national probation service. We feel that the current aims are those that are the most important, but we do not want to dilute them. We believe that an addition of this nature would dilute those clearly stated aims contained in Clause 2.
	The aims of the service have been carefully devised to inform everything that the service does. Adding extra words to the aims of the Bill and adding new aims would dilute and reduce the focus of a new national service. On the specifics of the issue, protecting the public already includes protecting them against property offences.
	The aims of the service have been carefully devised. They represent the key areas in which the service must make a difference. They are generic aims that will be applicable to the service's work with all offenders. However, the amendment refers to specific aspects of the work of the service and, while I agree that it is important--nobody would want to detract from the importance of considering property offences--we believe that it is too narrow to form part of the statutory aims.
	If we are not to put everything into the aims, and thus run the risk of diluting them, in our view we need to concentrate on the global issues. The original clause does precisely that and for that reason I commend it to the House. However, it is worth bearing in mind that aims are only aims and ought to be distinguished from functions, which are set out helpfully in Clause 2.
	We want the new service to concentrate on those activities which reduce crime. I thought that there was a consensus in this House on that issue. In many cases the way to reduce the likelihood of an offender re-offending is by assisting his or her rehabilitation. For those reasons I call upon the Committee to reject the amendment.

Baroness Blatch: The Minister thought he was being accommodating with the groupings. On one line there were 41 amendments covering 18 different subjects and on another there were 153 amendments in one grouping. I regard that as aggressive grouping and certainly not accommodating.
	On the Government's argument about the amendment, first, I agree with the Minister in that there is absolute consensus across this House, and I suspect in another place too, that preventing and reducing crime has to be the focus of the criminal justice system. However, the argument that to ask the Probation Service to concern itself with the protection of the public and property is to dilute the focus has little intellectual validity. Protecting property is as important as protecting the public. My suggestion is pretty inoffensive but has brought about a pretty lousy response.

Lord Harris of Greenwich: Having heard what the noble Baroness has said, will the Minister ask the House to reject an amendment of such little form? I urge him to consider this matter between now and Report stage. There will be a great deal of uneasiness about the reply that he has just given. It will be a great pity if we start off the Committee stage of an important Bill with a Division on a matter of this kind. It would be far better to see whether there could be some meeting of minds between now and Report stage.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I always like to be accommodating where it is useful to be so. Of course, the Government continually reflect on matters, but at this stage I am content with the aims as set out on the face of the Bill.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 81; Not-Contents, 91.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 2:
	Page 2, line 10, after ("proper") insert ("and effective").

Baroness Blatch: Amendment No. 2 seeks to add the words, "and effective", after the word "proper" in Clause 2(2)(c). I hope the Minister will agree that the word "proper" is a rather clinical and legal term.
	In order to command public support and respect for the Probation Service, punishment of offenders must be effective. I am the first to acknowledge that incredible work is being done throughout the Probation Service and it is important that we recognise that. But all those who work in the service would note the difference between the words "proper" and "effective". That is why we must distinguish between them. As set out in the Bill, the word "proper" in Clause 2(2)(c) does not subsume "effectiveness".
	Again, this is a modest but nevertheless important amendment and I hope that the Minister will agree, if he cannot accept it today, to reflect on some of the arguments to be put forward.
	The "What Works" approach by the Probation Service was introduced by me when I was a Minister. It has now been in place long enough for more sophisticated statistics to be available. I hope that the Minister can helpfully inform the debate, given that it is probably going on five years since the approach was first introduced, as to what is and what is not working in the Probation Service, the degree to which lessons are being learnt and the degree to which best practice is being used throughout the service.
	We know that for a long time just over 50 per cent of people who are on probation and serving community sentences offend again. However, within some practices in the service the reoffending rates are very low--and of course conversely within some practices in the service the reoffending rates are extremely high. If the average comes out at 52 per cent the urgency about applying the "What Works" approach is important.
	I believe that there ought to be an obligation to produce an effective service. I hope that in accepting that additional word the Minister will provide the Committee now or before the next stage of the Bill with sophisticated statistics about how the "What Works" approach is working. I beg to move.

Lord Dholakia: I listened carefully to what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, but I have a problem. I suspect that meting out effective punishment is a matter for the courts. While I subscribe to the idea that the type of reports produced should address that issue, I believe that effectiveness should be left to those who dispense justice.
	There is wide variation between sentences passed in different parts of the country. Even in neighbouring areas one sees considerable discrepancies in the way in which similar offences are dealt with. I therefore understand the public's concern about how one achieves an effective punishment. But if "effective" punishment means looking at community penalties, or trying to prevent people being pushed into overcrowded prisons, I have a great deal of sympathy with the proposal. However, if "effective" simply means being tough and sending people to prison, I have a problem with that.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The amendment attempts to change the aim of the service. In part, it is a re-run of an earlier argument.
	The current aims as stated in the Bill are generic. They are not intended to be precise in their terms, but we believe that they are in general terms the most important. I believe that to add to them would begin to dilute them. The aims have been carefully devised to inform everything which the service does. We believe that they can do that by their generic nature. Adding extra words would reduce the focus.
	I am not sure what adding the word "effective" would achieve. We all want to see effective practice both in terms of the enforcement of orders and the rehabilitation programmes which are successful in reducing reoffending. I congratulate the noble Baroness on her important role in ensuring that "What Works" had a good start in life. We believe that it is effective and that we have added to that effectiveness. I am happy to try to facilitate the noble Baroness's wisdom by providing her with any background briefing she might want to receive on the "What Works" programme and on what is proving to be effective in the Probation Service.
	We do not believe that adding the words "effective" or "appropriate" to a Bill of this nature is a good idea. It could cast doubt in cases where similar words do not appear; in other words, whether other things need to be done effectively or appropriately.
	The aims of the service are carefully devised to inform everything that the service does. For those reasons, we cannot support the amendment, although we support its spirit. We want the service to be effective and that is our shared concern. There is consensus about that and I congratulate all those who have played a part in securing that consensus for the service.

Baroness Blatch: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that it is for the courts to dispense punishment. Indeed, if that were followed through logically the entire line should be removed from the Bill. It asks the Probation Service to be concerned with the application of proper punishment. It is not the role of the Probation Service to administer punishment; its role is to supervise the punishment which is meted out by the courts. I argue that it should do that effectively. Acting "effectively" is not just about being tough or returning people to prison; it is about being so effective that fewer people reoffend. That is the meaning to which I was referring.
	The Minister said that he would provide me with any briefing that I need, but I was asking for it on behalf of the whole Committee. Our debates would be informed if we had that information. Has there been an evaluation report on the "What Works" approach? If so, can we see that? What are the current overall statistics as regards reoffending? What are the best and worst practice figures? Would it be helpful to produce that information before we meet again? It would certainly be helpful to me.
	Clearly, the Minister will not accept the word "effective". I shall withdraw my amendment, but I want to think about what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. I hope that we can include a provision in the Bill which properly reflects my point that the aim of the service should be to be as effective as possible in overseeing the proper punishments which are meted out by the courts. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Page 2, line 10, at end insert--
	("( ) ensuring offenders' awareness of the effects of crime on the victims of crime and the public").

Baroness Blatch: I have coupled together Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 and I hope that the Minister will see their merits. It is important to ensure the awareness of offenders of the impact of their crimes on the public, individuals and victims of crime and to be concerned with the education of offenders. That education can take many forms.
	We all know that in parts of the Probation Service much work is being undertaken as regards offenders facing up to the pain and anguish that they have caused to their victims. However, I hope that the Minister will agree that it is patchy and that more needs to be done.
	The process of rehabilitation for many on probation will require a reawakening to the seriousness of their behaviour and its impact. It will, or should, involve many educational programmes from basic skills teaching, home management and childcare through to therapy programmes designed to wean people away from drug taking and sexual offending.
	However, I was dismayed to read in the Official Report, Standing Committee, of another place (cols. 15 to 29 and 715 to 733) that to add these amendments would have the damaging effect of narrowing the work of the Probation Service rather than recognising the breadth of its work. I find that completely and utterly baffling. How can it be narrowing to ask the Probation Service to concern itself with raising offenders' awareness of the impact of their crimes on the victims? That is not narrowing; it is a core part of the work of the Probation Service. Furthermore, how can it be wrong to have as another aim the education of offenders?
	Wonderful work is being undertaken in the Probation Service on both those aspects. I know of impressive programmes in which young and not-so-young offenders have been brought face to face with their victims, and the impact has been profound. I am familiar also with some impressive educational programmes, which take many forms. They can wean people off habits that have got them into trouble or provide offenders with basic skills such as reading and writing, homemaking or child caring. It is incredible that the accusation against these amendments is that they would narrow the focus of the service.
	The proper protection of the public and property, the reduction of offending, and the proper and effective punishment of offenders are not narrowed by raising awareness of the impact of the offenders' activities. I hope that the Minister will think again, not repeat the arguments put in another place--which do not make sense. I beg to move.

Lord Dholakia: I support the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness, which make a lot of sense. Some time ago, a number of us attended a conference on rehabilitative justice arranged by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, with participants from America, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. There was remarkable consensus on taking public perception into account. I understand that that is being seriously considered by the Home Office. If so, it should be included as an aim of the Probation Service. That applies equally to education.
	Amendment No. 5 in my name is about the rehabilitation of offenders. I was surprised to hear the Minister say, when speaking to Amendment No. 1, that the aim of the service was the rehabilitation of offenders. Where is that wording to be found? I cannot find it. If the Minister thinks now that it is included but finds that it is not, he should consider including what is a fundamental aim.
	We are surprised that the existing objective of the rehabilitation of offenders is omitted, particularly in respect of the Probation Service--to be replaced by,
	"the proper punishment of offenders".
	The supervision of offenders is not a process of continual punishment. That would be counter-productive and perpetuate criminality, not reduce it. Community court orders are handed down by magistrates and judges as a punishment but not for punishment.
	The aims and functions described in Clause 2 would not address the underlying problems that contribute to offending behaviour--education, training and work, emotional difficulties, poor housing, anti-social behaviour and so on. Attention to rehabilitation is a priority to ensure that there are fewer victims in future--an aim to which we all subscribe. Unless the courts and public clearly understand that the rehabilitation of offenders is a prime function of the Probation Service, it will be undermined.
	Of the service's other aims, contributing to the protection of the public is achieved through reducing offending by participation in effective programmes and group work--but neither process by itself addresses the underlying causes of criminality. It is right and proper that the rehabilitation of offenders should be one of the primary aims specified in the Bill.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I understand the arguments made by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord but I cannot agree. There is some confusion between aims and functions. The word "rehabilitation" is used in Clause 1 where it is described as one of the functions of the Probation Service. The function inherited by the Government as a central rubric was to assist and befriend offenders. We have moved on from there. It is important to have a clear statement in the legislation on the purposes of the service. Those are set out in the aims and functions but we should not confuse the two.

Baroness Blatch: Will the Minister produce a document stating that a central aim of the previous government's policy for the whole Probation Service was to assist and befriend?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: That is the term used in previous legislation. I believe it was used in the 1993 Act, having been inherited by the previous government from 1973 legislation. I speak from memory but that was the general rubric for the Probation Service. Clause 2 attempts to describe its aims and functions with much grater clarity. We do not want the service's aims and functions cluttered up or confused.
	I accept the point that rehabilitation will be part of the Probation Service's core business in ensuring that people understand the nature and impact of their offending behaviour. The education of offenders when they are under forms of supervision will also be important. It is our intention to ensure that education and training are provided in the community for those who are released from prison after serving part of their sentence.
	We warmly embrace the need to ensure that offenders are made fully aware of the impact of their criminal activities. As a Government, we have been championing victims and ensuring that courts are made aware of the impact of particular crimes, through victim personal statements and so on. We need to ensure that the public are educated about those points.
	We agree that it will often be necessary for the Probation Service to assist in educating offenders on a number of important social issues but we are not satisfied that that needs to be among the service's statutory stated aims. We want to position the national service as an agency within the criminal justice system as part of its law and order work. It is no longer right to view the Probation Service as a social work organisation, as it has partly been seen in the past.
	Although I agree that such work is important, it is too narrow to form part of the service's statutory aims. The Government have no intention of neglecting the appreciation of the impact of crime on victims. Far from it. That work is significant for seconded probation staff working inside prisons and in community activities. Education will have priority. We take seriously the lack of literacy skills that is clearly evident among many offenders--a key handicap to obtaining employment. Useful employment is one of the best ways of keeping people out of difficulty and out of trouble with the law.
	We want the new service to concentrate on activities that reduce crime. In many cases, the way to reduce the likelihood of an offender reoffending is by assisting in their rehabilitation, which is why that is specified in Clause 1(1)(b) as an overarching purpose and function of the service. We think that rehabilitation goes much wider, to include all sorts of social needs with which other agencies are better placed to deal. We believe that to add a broad-based aim such as that proposed would deflect the focus of the service away from its primary role as a law enforcement agency. As ever, I am open to persuasion. We shall continue to review the way in which the aims are defined in legislation and reflect on these matters at greater length.

Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for his courtesy and thoroughness in sending me copies of all the new government amendments tabled to the Bill. Since I merely attended, and did not speak at, Second Reading, I regard that as a truly formidable piece of care and observation. I am very much impressed. I also welcome some parts of the Minister's reply. I am pleased to hear that it will be a function of the service to see to the rehabilitation of offenders, but I cannot quite get my mind round the question: how will it be a key function of the service without being one of its aims? It is almost as if the Minister is saying that that is what the service will do when it is sleepwalking. I am sure that that is not his intention, but I do not quite follow the logic of that distinction.
	From whichever quarter of the Committee we come, it is agreed that punishment will always be a key part of the system of criminal justice. It is not in dispute that where there is crime there must be punishment, but rehabilitation must always be one of the aims. The ultimate purpose of any attempt to deal with crime is that the person should not do it again, and normally punishment is a key part of that. There is a considerable overlap between the aims of punishment and rehabilitation but there is also a large diversion at the extremes. I had always understood that if, when a court decided whether to use imprisonment or probation, it chose the latter it was giving priority to the aim of rehabilitation because it believed that the chances of achieving it were sufficient to create a degree of optimism. That is a distinction of which any of us who have had any disciplinary power must have been aware in our own lives.
	I shall not forget one of my pupils who, while an idle scapegrace, had considerable ability. My colleagues recommended quite stern disciplinary measures. Instead, I told him that I thought him capable of achieving a first if he thought it was worth bothering. My colleagues said that I was quite mad, but the individual in question did so. In that case, giving priority to the aim of rehabilitation had beneficial effects. There are a number of people who become involved in crime with a slightly smaller ration of mens rea than others. With a certain amount of help they can be put back on the straight and narrow, whereas if they are put into prison they will probably learn a great deal more about how to offend more successfully. As I understand it, those are the kinds of people who are suitable for probation.
	If the aim of probation is not rehabilitation, I do not know what it is. If we say that probation is seen simply as a punishment, a considerable part of the rehabilitative effect is diminished. A great deal of that effect consists specifically of the considered and calculated application of mercy, which Dorothy Sayers describes as the occasional generosity that is like a blow in the face. There are some who will be made to think about it, whereas if they are punished they merely become pigheaded and obstinate, which some people are quite good at. This restatement of the purpose may have the effect of diminishing the effectiveness of the whole service. I hope that the Minister will think again because this is a long Bill and, if we did not need to come back to the matter on Report, it could be in everybody's interest.

Baroness Blatch: I am grateful for the interventions of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. In the light of the response of the Minister to all of the amendments, I too am in some difficulty about how the Bill reads. As I understand it, the Government say that it is the function and aim of the service to protect the public but not property, to reduce reoffending and to achieve the proper punishment of offenders, which we all agree is a matter for the courts, and that the supervision of offenders is not a matter for the Probation Service.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Do I understand the noble Baroness to say she does not accept that one function of the Probation Service is the supervision of offenders? Perhaps the noble Baroness will clarify her remarks.

Baroness Blatch: I am repeating what the Government say. The Government say that some things are aims and others are not. I tried to introduce the aim of effective punishment. Following debate, I believe that it is the effective supervision of punishment to which I refer, but that is not deemed to be an aim. The Government do not accept that one aim is to ensure the awareness of offenders of the effects of their crimes on victims and the public. It is not an aim of the Probation Service to educate offenders. I believe that it is preferable for "education" to be subsumed by "rehabilitation" because that is a broader term.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Baroness draws too many inferences from the position she sets out. We want to see effective punishment, education and rehabilitation in the community. We suggest that it is better to define the aims and functions in the Bill in a broader and more generic way. Those matters will have a bearing on the way in which the functions are carried out and how the aims of the service are interpreted. That is the important point which perhaps the noble Baroness overlooks. I do not seek to be unhelpful. I almost agree with the noble Baroness that those activities are part of the core business of a probation service.

Lord Dholakia: I find it difficult to follow the noble Lord's argument. Does the Minister accept that the National Association of Probation Officers, which looks after the interests of the Probation Service among others, has asked for "rehabilitation" to be stated as one of the aims of the service? What is wrong with including that particular word if the Probation Service itself is comfortable with it?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Rehabilitation is clearly set out in Clause 1 as a function of the service. We see it as an overarching responsibility of the service to achieve rehabilitation. As many Members of the Committee have observed, rehabilitation is part and parcel of ensuring that people do not reoffend and have to be punished in future. Rehabilitation is important, and that is why it is in Clause 1.

Baroness Blatch: I cannot think of anything more broad and generic than "rehabilitation"; it covers so much of what the Probation Service is about. If the aim is ensuring an awareness of the effect of offenders' actions on victims and the public, and education and rehabilitation are not included, why is the protection of the public and the reduction of reoffending to be included? The reduction of reoffending is not nearly so wide as some of the matters that we suggest should go into the Bill. The Government dance on the head of a pin in seeking to produce arguments as to why the public should not be considered alongside property, the effective supervision of punishment and awareness among offenders of the impact of their activities on the public. What the noble Lord says is baffling.
	The Minister also said in passing that the Probation Service is not a social work organisation. When I sat in the Minister's seat I made the same argument very strongly but received no support from his colleagues sitting on this side of the Chamber at the time. The fight to keep social work training for probation officers was vigorously fought in this place on all Benches. I lost miserably on that occasion. The argument was that the work of a probation officer was better served by social work rather than Probation Service training which made it central to the criminal justice system.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Perhaps the noble Baroness and I are at one on the issue of what is appropriate for training. I am glad that that is the case. My understanding is that the previous government unfortunately cut support for Probation Service training and indeed cut financial support to the Probation Service full stop. This Government have reversed those cuts and have begun to increase the level of investment into the Probation Service. I am grateful that the noble Baroness now supports our efforts to drive up standards, to improve training and the quality of training and the "appropriateness"--to use one of her own words--of training to the new Probation Service.

Baroness Blatch: That was a wonderful piece of side-tracking. However, the point I was making was that there was no support from Labour shadow Ministers at the time for changing the focus of training for the Probation Service from social worker training to training for effective probation officer work.
	The noble Lord may be willing to provide some more statistics. He rightly makes the point that one way to help reduce reoffending is to get people into work. It is a real part of the work of the Probation Service to rehabilitate people by finding employment for them, or, if it is unable to find employment for them, preparing them so that they are more employable. I agree with that. Given the rate of unemployment, which is, happily, at a low level, it would be helpful to know whether there is a correlation now between the level of crime and the success rate of the Probation Service. May we see some of the statistics over the past four or five years for the success of these new approaches and the degree to which they are working?
	I hope I am not wrong. I thought I heard the Minister say that he would reflect on these issues between now and the next stage of the Bill. If that is the case, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]
	Clause 2 agreed to.
	Clause 3 [Functions of the Secretary of State]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 6:
	Page 2, line 24, at end insert--
	("(5) The Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament the conditions on which he makes any payment under this section.").

Baroness Blatch: Amendment No. 6 asks the Secretary of State to lay before each House of Parliament the conditions on which he makes any payment under this clause. I can be brief. I am seeking clarification from the Minister about the way in which the Government intend to make payments and about the conditions that would be attached to such payments. In Committee in another place the Minister agreed to offer clarification but argued that the amendment was unnecessary. I shall not take on that argument. If the amendment is unnecessary, it can only be unnecessary. We can be assured that it is unnecessary only if the noble Lord explains fully how this provision will work in practice. I beg to move.

Lord Dholakia: Amendment No. 6 is grouped with Amendment No. 58 which stands in my name. The proposed new subsection states:
	"The Secretary of State must be satisfied that sufficient resources have been made available to a probation board to ensure that it can perform its functions".
	The present clause confers on the Secretary of State the power effectively to take over a failing probation board and introduce any other means he thinks appropriate, including asking the voluntary or private sector to manage it. I have no problem with that, but it would be helpful to know how one effectively measures failure. I shall use some examples. Clause 10 states that the test of failure is that,
	"it appears to him"--
	the Secretary of State--
	"that the board is failing".
	We would argue that a stronger test than subjectivity is needed if the failure is to be proved. In any event, we believe that the service must be adequately resourced to ensure a fair playing field.
	The present position is interesting. In the past five years the probation budget overall has seen a cut of 25 per cent in real terms. At the same time, caseloads have increased by 30 per cent and overall staffing levels have been reduced by 15 per cent. Last year the average cut for the Probation Service was 4.7 per cent. The Probation Service's three-year plan predicts that there will be a continued rise in the number of cases supervised and the number of reports written over the next two to three years. In addition, by 2003 the Home Office expects 60,000 offenders, or 40 per cent of the overall caseload, to have been put though the effective practice initiative. That is a series of programmes aimed at changing offenders' behaviour, which require up to 100 hours of intensive group work.
	If attention is not given to the resource issue in the next 12 months, most boards will run the risk of being in default. That point needs to be thoroughly addressed.

Earl Russell: There is truth in the maxim that all reorganisation leads to disorganisation. It has costs. My noble friend has just been saying exactly the same things that I remember the late Lady Seear saying on the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. It was the voice of Cassandra. It was not listened to and a great deal of damage has followed. I am tired of playing Cassandra; I would rather be listened to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I always listen to the noble Earl and his wise words on these matters. I hope that during the course of these debates we achieve effective results as a product of listening.
	Both of these amendments deal with payments relating to the work of the national probation service. Amendment No. 6 would require the Secretary of State to lay before both Houses of Parliament the conditions on which he makes any payment to any person for any of the purposes in Clause 1 of the Bill, whether it relates to reports to courts, supervision, the rehabilitation of offenders, giving effect to community orders, supervising people released from prison, or providing accommodation on approved premises.
	Amendment No. 58 would require the Secretary of State to be satisfied that sufficient resources had been made available to a probation board for it to fulfil its functions. I well understand the concerns that have given rise to that amendment. But it is not clear that Amendment No. 58 would have any practical effect. The amendment would be inserted at the end of the clause dealing with default powers and would appear simply as a statement.
	We want to achieve a flexible and effective allocation of resources for a newly modernised national probation service. Given the detailed nature of the conditions and the extent and variety of payments made to the service, we believe that the amendments would perhaps lead to excessive scrutiny of the minutiae and detail of that service.
	The Government require an effectively operating national probation service with unified leadership and of course control. But we are keen to resource probation services and to be effective in resourcing those services. The Government have made major investment. Under the first of our spending reviews we allocated an extra £127 million. This summer, in SR2000, we announced a further increase of £400 million. It is our intention over the next few years to increase staffing to the Probation Service by around 30 per cent.
	We envisage payments for a range of purposes relating to the tasks of the national probation service. The payments will not only be to the local probation boards but, potentially, to voluntary organisation, external contractors, individuals and other bodies concerned with the criminal justice system. The conditions attached to these payments will need to be varied and detailed. It would be both unusual and unnecessary to place before both Houses the full conditions on which, for example, every payment to every voluntary organisation for probation-related work was made; nor would it be an effective use of resources to require the new Probation Service to supply that level of detail. The accounting and auditing arrangements in the Bill will provide the proper and appropriate level of public accountability. For that reason we do not support Amendment No. 6.
	As I said earlier, Amendment No. 58 would add little to the Bill. We think that it is probably unnecessary, in particular in view of our funding commitments. As I read it, I do not see that it would provide a check on future governments who may be less inclined to invest in the Probation Service, because the clause would have very few teeth. For those reasons, we feel unable to support either of the amendments.

Baroness Blatch: We have had a useful debate and I am grateful for that. Given the nature of the new service, which will be a centrally directed, national service, it is important that the basis on which the Secretary of State will operate is understood throughout the service; namely, the basis on which "ad hocery" will be resorted to in a way that will be unfair or will cause injustice throughout the service.
	If the amendment is unacceptable to the Government--I think that the arguments put forward by the Minister are persuasive--I still believe that, so far as concerns the service, there should be a proper understanding of the basis on which future funding will be made and the basis on which the Secretary of State's powers to intervene in or to procure (he will be in a position to delegate to a third party) provisions for the functions of the service. Such an understanding should be reached by a parliamentary decision, the production of a circular or other published information. That will allow the service to be confident about the way in which funding will take place.
	The noble Lord has a weakness in that he always goes off at a tangent in order to comment on the Government's generosity with funding. However, these arguments do not at this stage address that point, although whatever the service's remit, one expects it to be properly funded. The arguments here are different from that. They concern how the Secretary of State will exercise his funding obligations and how to avoid allowing any degree of "ad hocery" to reign, thereby causing injustices. Both the service itself and this Committee need to be reassured on those points and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to find a way of providing that reassurance.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Perhaps I may respond to the final point made by the noble Baroness. She puts forward a good argument when she says that the means by which funds are allocated must be made plain to the service itself. No doubt we shall undertake to inform the service precisely of those means. However, I think that it would be inappropriate to put this point on to the face of the Bill.

Baroness Blatch: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 3 agreed to.
	Clause 4 [Local Boards]:

Baroness Seccombe: moved Amendment No. 7:
	Page 2, line 27, leave out ("local") and insert ("probation").

Baroness Seccombe: I shall be brief because this is a simple and straightforward amendment. Nevertheless, it is important because it seeks to promote understanding of the Probation Service at the local level, in local communities. After all, that is where the good work that we have been discussing this afternoon is done. I hope that the amendment will be accepted.
	The amendment applies throughout the Bill wherever reference is made to "local board". We believe that that phrase should be amended to read "probation board". The use of the phrase "local board" is not only confusing and meaningless, but could cause problems when contracting with other boards. In-house, it may be understood, but to those outside, it would be ambiguous. Many other local boards exist, such as those of companies, banks and even the gas board.
	I note that in recent correspondence on 11th July, the Minister stated that:
	"when they come into existence, each will be a board for a particular area and will be named accordingly. So the full title for the local board for Essex, for example, is likely to be 'The National Probation Service for England and Wales--Essex Area Board'".
	It seems to me that that is not only confusing as regards its reference to "area" rather than "local", but is clearly also less than succinct.
	I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to our argument. I beg to move.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 10A tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Dholakia. It covers the same point and I wish to add only a few remarks to those already made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe.
	I wish to make two points. First, the name of an institution is rather more important than is sometimes thought. The great British public is in a state of abject confusion because we change almost on a whim the names of many key elements of different parts of our national life. No sooner have people got the hang of a new name, when, lo and behold, a new administration brings in changes, including changes to the name itself.
	Secondly, the public will be helped greatly if the names of the boards are to some extent self-descriptive. That makes common sense. To refer simply to "local boards" without adding a qualifying adjective provides a recipe for confusion. That name is totally unmemorable, forgettable and neutral--some might even say a little "Kafkaesque". The present name "local board" suggests nothing more and nothing less.
	We strongly support this proposal. It will allow local boards to add a prefix to the name "probation board", so that we would have, for example, the "Suffolk Probation Board" or the "Birmingham Probation Board". Such names would be simple and easily understood. I hope very much that the Government will agree.

Baroness Blatch: I should like to ask a question. Are these amendments in the wrong grouping? Should Amendment No. 10A be grouped with Amendment No. 10C? If that is not the case, this grouping does not make sense.

Lord Bach: Perhaps I may assist. Not long before the House sat I was told by the Whips' Office that Amendment No. 10A was to be taken with Amendment No. 7. That means that Amendment No. 29 will be taken in its place, after Amendment No. 28 and before Amendment No. 31. I am very sorry if the noble Baroness was not given that information.
	I shall repeat the order of amendments. Amendment No. 10A has been spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. The new first amendment in that grouping, Amendment No. 29, will be taken in its normal place. I hope that this has not caused confusion for the Committee.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Both amendments address the same point and I believe that the Committee accepts that. I was brought up in the era of gas boards, electricity boards and so forth. Sadly, they are no longer with us. We now have names like Segas and Seeboard to reflect the fact that they are privatised organisations. Time has moved on.
	The amendments seek to replace the reference to "local board" with the word "probation". We believe that that is unnecessary. It is unnecessary for a simple reason: calling the boards "local" boards emphasises their close relationship with the communities that they will cover. Furthermore, each local board will include the word "probation" in its title as well as the geographical area it covers. My argument that this provision is unnecessary is simply that it does not need to be included in the legislation. I do not believe that the amendments would achieve anything. However, I can give an assurance that the word "probation" will appear in each area board title.

Earl Russell: If I understand the Minister aright, he has told the Committee that the word "probation" is itself on probation. I should like to ask him to take a little more seriously the comment made by my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury; confusion is created by changing names.
	I remember an older contemporary who never ceased to refer to Marylebone Station as the "Grand Central Station". Once one has fixed a name, it remains fixed. To start changing names engenders the kind of bewilderment felt by my wife--who was born and bred in Birmingham--when she tries to negotiate the city centre. It cannot be done.

Baroness Seccombe: I have listened to what the Minister has said, but it appears that, if the Government believe that the word "probation" will be used, then why should that not be included on the face of the Bill? We believe that that should be done. However, at this stage I should like to withdraw the amendment so that I can think about what to do next.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: For my part, I should be very happy to have "local probation board" if the Government set store by "local". But the argument the Minister adduced for the importance of keeping "local" in the title is even more strongly to be advanced in regard to keeping the word "probation".

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Methuen: In calling Amendment No. 8, I must indicate that, if Amendment No. 8 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 9.

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 8:
	Page 3, line 1, leave out subsection (6).

Baroness Hanham: In speaking to this amendment perhaps I may first declare that I am a magistrate in both the family court and in the adult court.
	In moving Amendment No. 8 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 9. I understand what the Deputy Chairman of Committees said about the exclusion of Amendment No. 9 should Amendment No. 8 be agreed to.
	Clause 4(6) gives the Secretary of State the power to redetermine any or all of the boundaries of the areas without further reference to Parliament. As the intention is that the 42 area boundaries dividing England and Wales would match those of the police forces and, to quote the Explanatory Notes, improve efficiency by,
	"creating common boundaries across all the agencies in the criminal justice system",
	the implications of any subsequent changes would be immense. This clause would mean that the whole edifice and rationale of the structure could be brought down by a stroke of the Secretary of State's pen.
	So much rides on the boards and on how they function in their geographical areas that any alterations to the boundaries, once set, could only mean that the Secretary of State was rethinking the entire scheme. This would not be a minor or trivial matter which could be resolved by ministerial order. Once the boards were up and running any changes would be highly controversial. We believe that the implications are too great for the Secretary of State to make such changes under orders which have not been the subject of parliamentary scrutiny and that this clause should therefore be deleted.
	However, if the Minister is not prepared to do that, Amendment No. 9 seeks to bring the draft order before Parliament, to be agreed by both Houses. This would ensure that proper consideration would be brought to bear on the matter. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is my turn to be slightly puzzled by an amendment. As I understand it, the amendment would remove the flexibility to alter and reshape the probation service areas in respect of geographical boundaries and would place an obligation on the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament any plans for redivision.
	We take the view that it is necessary to ensure maximum flexibility in the way in which we operate. The existing power in the 1993 Act to redefine boundaries is exercisable without any parliamentary procedure at all. With this legislation we are attempting to achieve an improvement on the current position. That is probably the best way to proceed. The existing powers in the Probation Service Act 1993 allow boundaries to be redefined without any parliamentary procedure at all. We are seeking to put in place an undoubted improvement which provides for changes to be made by a negative resolution. Of course, the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation thought that this was a highly sensible way of proceeding.
	We have listened to some of the arguments about the importance of there being a parliamentary procedure. There was not one before; now there will be one. It has been given a clean bill of health by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, whose views on these matters are worth listening to.

Baroness Hanham: I hope that that does not mean, by definition, that my views on these matters are not worth listening to.
	To give the Secretary of State the flexibility to reshape areas without any further democratic involvement seems wholly undesirable. The point I was trying to make is that once the boundaries are set it will be a major job to change any of them: the boards are set up, the members are appointed, the boards are working and the police forces and the demarcation of the boundaries of the service are at one. So it will not be a trivial matter to change any boundaries. As I said, it will also be controversial. This should not be done by means of negative resolution but by a procedure which includes extensive consultation--perhaps more than was included in the 1993 Act--and that consultation should result in the democratic process of the Houses of Parliament having the opportunity to comment on the Secretary of State's proposals. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
	Clause 4 agreed to.
	Schedule 1 [Local Boards]:

Lord Methuen: I should indicate that, if Amendment No. 10 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 10A to 16.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 10:
	Page 46, line 4, leave out paragraphs 1 and 2.

Baroness Blatch: In moving Amendment No. 10 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 11, 13, 18, 20 and 70, and to Amendments Nos. 10C and 18A, which have been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury.
	I cannot over-emphasise the importance of these amendments. The Central Probation Council and many chief officers feel extremely strongly about this. They are very concerned--I share that concern--that effective line management is not only desirable but absolutely crucial. If something goes wrong in the service--and in the Probation Service one can see potential for all kinds of things going wrong--it is very important to have clear line management and ownership of all that goes on in the Probation Service at a local level. It is a national service, locally delivered, and that will be absolutely essential.
	The proposal that chief officers should not be employed by boards will create a severe difficulty for the employers. It will create a recipe for confusion of accountability and authority, and will leave the employers--that is, the probation boards--in an invidious position. Chief officers, too, are likely to find themselves in a difficult position, being members of a board charged with administering the local service but receiving direct instructions from the Home Office.
	The service will be working--as it does now--to national standards and national priorities. The whole thrust of the Bill is to improve performance and iron out inconsistencies across England and Wales. The service does not argue with that. Indeed, the Central Probation Council agrees with a national service locally delivered. However, the boards are to interpret national priorities in the light of local circumstances and local needs. As a member of a board, the chief officer should be party to that corporate decision but may receive conflicting instructions from the Home Office. For example, the police authorities have their sets of priorities throughout the year; the service as set out in the Bill will have an obligation to work with the police authorities. If their priorities are different, not consistent or do not reflect the particular needs of the Probation Service, there will be tension. The chief officer's line management goes upward to the Secretary of State, whereas the board has the responsibility for delivering the service locally, with the chief officer being a member of the board.
	How will industrial relations be managed? What will be the reaction of staff to receiving instructions from someone who is not employed by the organisation to which they are contracted? How will boards delegate staffing issues to someone not in their employ? Will the Home Office be liable in the event that the chief officer rather than the board makes an error? Who would be sued? In that situation, would the Government be culpable along with the chief officer?
	Ministers have spoken of the new Probation Service following the health service model. If that were the case, probation boards would employ their chief officers. The chief executive of a health trust is employed by the trust, and a police authority employs the chief constable, who is also a statutory office holder. These amendments give the Probation Service the same status and arrangements as health service trusts. In that respect they should be responsible for employing their chief officer.
	The Secretary of State need have no fear. He would still retain the right of approval of the appointment of a chief officer to a particular area. Arrangements could easily be made for the secondment of a chief officer to the national directorate or to other areas. A new relationship between the chairman of the board and the Home Office is envisaged. The Secretary of State will be able to appoint, and indeed to remove, boards; he will have 100 per cent control over funding and allocation of funding between boards; he will set overall objectives for the service; he will receive reports from Her Majesty's Inspectorate, regular statistical and financial information, audit reports and annual reports from each board; and there will be powers of direction and default.
	What benefit, therefore, is there in one individual being contracted to a different employer? It makes no sense. The Secretary of State's powers are not impeded one iota, but what is important is that the chief officer has the responsibility, and that the board, as employer, has a clear management line. In regard to the administration of a service as complicated as the Probation Service, whose work is so serious and complicated, and at times potentially dangerous, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to accept the amendment.
	I have a feeling that a diktat has gone out across government saying, "Accept no amendments; stonewall; it all saves time". I hope the noble Lord knows that it is characteristic of this House not to be swayed by that kind of argument. Having sat on the Benches opposite, I know the feeling of irritation and urgency, the sense of "wanting to get on". But this is an important Bill. There is a huge amount of support behind the thrust of a national service locally delivered. This is an extremely important amendment. I hope that the noble Lord will see it in that light and that he will not repeat the arguments that he set out in the letter that he kindly sent to me, which were used also by his colleagues in another place. I beg to move.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Amendments Nos. 10B, 10C and 18A in this group stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Dholakia. We do not intend to speak further to or move Amendment No. 18A. However, perhaps I may speak briefly to Amendment No. 10B and, in speaking to Amendment No. 10C, support the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.
	Amendment No. 10B would give the board the power in effect to co-opt one person to be a member of the board. The power of co-option is one that is almost universally retained by governing bodies of all kinds. I should perhaps declare my experience for the past 20 years in drafting constitutions for all manner of principally voluntary and non-profit-making organisations but also commercial organisations. It is extremely useful for the boards to have a power of co-option. It would enable them to add to their number someone of particular expertise, contact or experience who might help in a particular project or predicament. I leave my advocacy of Amendment No. 10B at that. It is simple and would not in any way endanger the basic scheme.
	Amendment No. 10C deals with the basic arrangements from Parliament, through the Home Secretary, to the national director, and down to the local boards. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and like other speakers at Second Reading, I believe that the balance is counter-productive and will not serve the Government's purposes or those of Members on this side of the Committee who to a large degree share the Government's purposes. This is an argument about ways and means.
	Striking the balance between maximum devolution of power, authority and autonomy on the one hand, which tend to get the best out of people, and retaining an essential degree of control at the centre, which is necessary in terms of the consistency and thrust of national policy, calls upon the maximum wisdom of those in this Chamber and of the Government who are framing the provisions.
	The temptation in this age seems always to be: when in doubt, retain control; when in doubt, grab more control. The argument seems to go: if one has met a degree of difference, as most of us have, in the way in which probation services have been delivered by committees around the country, we must stop all the inconsistency, the variable quality and ensure consistency in future, and that that can be delivered only by a national system, nationally controlled.
	We on these Benches in particular are doubtful about some of the assumptions made in terms of the attempt to ensure future quality by pulling powers into the centre. There are myriad examples where that has led to the reverse. There is nothing more consistent than the graveyard, but it is not exactly a place of dynamic creativity.
	So we are strongly inclined to think that too much power has been garnered by the Secretary of State under these provisions. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, read out some of them to the Committee. I should like to concentrate on one of those powers. It is contained in paragraph 12, which states simply:
	"Functions and other powers of local boards must be performed in accordance with any directions given to them by the Secretary of State".
	In various letters which the Minister kindly wrote to Members of this place after Second Reading, he made it plain that this is indeed intended to be an omnibus power and will be utilised to resolve--note the neutral word--local disputes that might arise within a board, and in particular between a board and the chief officer.
	Perhaps I may quote from one of the letters written by the Minister on this point to my noble friend Lord Dholakia on 11th July. He said:
	"In common with the Chair and all the other board members, he [the chief officer] will be required, under Schedule 1 paragraph 12, to comply with any directions made by the Secretary of State. So it is clear that if any conflict does arise within the board, it can be resolved by the Secretary of State who will be able to direct all parties to follow the same course".
	Oh, will he? How on earth will that work in practice? How on earth can the Secretary of State expect to be sensitive to all the ongoing, inevitable disagreements within the myriad boards over which he has this draconian power? The power is in itself dangerously wide. But the notion is that it will be used to resolve conflicts which, it is rightly said, are inevitable under the structure in the Bill as drafted, given that the chief executive officer is employed by, and is answerable to, not the board but the distant Secretary of State.
	I know of no one on the world of governance, whether corporate, voluntary or any other, who believes that that is a workable arrangement. If it is not--and I have looked in vain for any precedent that might provide reassurance on the point--then it is our job as a revising Chamber to persuade the Government in effect to improve their own measure for their own ends.
	Perhaps I may add a further important point. It is a commonplace that if power and authority are given to a group of individuals to get on with a particular task, first, they will usually rise to the challenge, and, secondly--this is my point--there is then some prospect of attracting to that body men and women of a higher calibre. My concern is that the boards will be so much under the thumb of the Secretary of State, and will be so curtailed in what they do--that is, they will have so little real power and no autonomy--that we shall not get the ablest men and women to sit on them. Frankly, if we do not, the job will be ill done. For that reason also, I strongly urge both the Minister and the Government to reconsider the issue. I realise how difficult that may be and I am aware of their aims and objectives. But I do not want to be saying, "I told you so", in five years' time. I am sure that we would all prefer this issue to be reviewed, with the Minister returning to us at the next stage with a new concordat.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I thank both contributors to the debate for their comments. In some ways, I believe that there is a degree of consensus here. The noble Baroness agrees that there needs to be an effective national probation service. I believe that she also agrees with the general drift of what the Government are trying to do. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, also seems to agree with the general drift of what we seek to achieve; indeed, he suggested that in his earlier remarks. In a sense, there is an irony here. All of us are informed by a strong "localist" background in our politics. The noble Baroness was an indefatigable and effective local leader and I like to think that I was not too bad in that respect. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is very keen on the local aspect and on having services close to the locality. Therefore, I understand the strength of both strains of the argument.
	However, in order to succeed and create a service that performs in the best possible way, we take the view that we need to improve performance. Good performance is already there, but we want to improve upon it and raise standards. That is the reason why we have struck out on a course to create an effective national probation service. We believe that such a service should have a structure that provides strong leadership, both centrally and locally. We want a service within an overall national strategy based on what works--and there seems to be a consensus on that aim. We also want boards that are more diverse and more representative. I know that noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches support that aim and objective. We also want a service that has better and clearer lines of accountability. We want to have the means of removing inefficient or ineffective boards. That has not been the case in the past and has sometimes proved to be to the detriment of the service. We also want to have more efficient use of the estate through central management.
	Although this group of amendments is well intentioned, I believe that it is misconceived. Moreover, if such provisions were to be inserted, they would seriously undermine the Government's intentions to create a more effective and accountable service, which is clearly focused on protecting the public and reducing reoffending--again, aims with which we all agree. In our view, these amendments seek to retain aspects of the current arrangements, which I believe we all agree have proved in the past to be lacking in some respects and in need of change. Such provisions would simply impede the better management of the service.
	At present, there is no identifiable individual who is responsible for delivering service--its wide commitments--or the means for ensuring a consistently high standard of performance. That has led to unacceptable variation in the standard of performance achieved in different areas which cannot be explained other than in terms of the quality of local management and leadership. If performance is to be raised, there needs to be a coherent national organisation with strong central leadership, together with the means to deal with poor performance.
	There are many examples of very good committees within the service. Sadly, however, that is not the universal picture. I believe that that was ably demonstrated by the excellent work that ACOP carried out in auditing performance in relation to enforcement. We need a more consistent approach. If the Secretary of State is to be accountable for the delivery of an efficient service, which is vital if crime is to be reduced, he must have the means to deliver the required outcomes.
	Some noble Lords have argued that the structure we propose would lead to conflict between chief officers and boards and that it would, therefore, be unworkable. I argue that the converse is true and that it will tackle existing problems. The chief officer will be a member of the board and will undertake the day-to-day management on behalf of the board. In our scheme, all of the board will be appointed by the Secretary of State and will be accountable to him. They will be required to work within the strategic framework determined by the Secretary of State. However, that will not remove the very important local dimension--we want that benefit--that we are keen to retain. Under our model the boards will be more diverse and representative of their local areas. They will have to deliver a service in a way that meets local needs. Their work--

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. In the event of a disagreement between the clear majority of a board and the chief officer, can the noble Lord tell the Committee whether it is really his proposition that the Home Secretary of the day will send a direction down to, say, Suffolk stating that the board must follow the views of the chief officer on the issue? If that is the case--it seems to me to be so from his letter--what effect will that have upon the morale, conduct and willingness to continue in service of the rest of the board?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I take the point made in what I believe the noble Lord will accept is an extreme example. I am sure that persuasion, discussion and negotiation will have taken place in such a case. I have no doubt that a resolution to any potential conflict would be best served by adopting those means. If the Secretary of State ultimately finds his will frustrated, clearly it will be a matter for him to take the steps identified by the noble Lord as a way to resolve the matter. There have been cases in the past where difficulties have been experienced. Because there was no clear line management and no sense of direction or purpose for such management, profound problems arose. That was not necessarily for the benefit of the service. We need to establish a system that is transparent to those who serve in it and more accountable both locally and nationally.
	Perhaps I may concentrate a little on the detail of the amendments. Amendments Nos. 10, 10B, 10C and 11 would fundamentally change the proposed board structure and, in our view, make the boards less effective. As I said before, the key to improving performance--I believe we all accept this--is good and effective leadership. It is right that members of the board, including the chief officer, should be appointed by the Secretary of State, though for judges it would be the Lord Chancellor. There is no need for co-opted members, as suggested by Amendment No. 18A.
	Sub-committees will deal with specific issues. They will be able to call on outside expertise if necessary. However, the boards will not need to appoint additional members. It is our intention to involve local board chairs in chief officer appointments, where chief officers will change. The selection process that is now well under way is based on the advice of the office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. So there will be transparency in the process, which will be carefully invigilated.
	Amendments Nos. 18 and 20 would, we believe, undermine the key position of the chief officer in the new structure and hamper efficient day-to-day management. Amendment No. 70 is a consequential amendment that would have the effect of treating chief officers in the same manner as other employees in respect of transfer to new services. We believe that any national organisation should have the ability to appoint its senior executives centrally. The Government are satisfied that it is absolutely right for chief probation officers to be appointed by the Secretary of State.
	I realise that my response will not satisfy the proposers of the amendments in this group. However, I hope that I have directly addressed the issues raised in the debate. Our intention is to create a well-focused, well-structured, clearly-led and well-managed organisation. Yes, that will mean a degree of centralisation of direction and determination. It will also mean an important local input. We value the local, but in trying to reorient this service and ensure that it is better focused on reducing offending rates, and so on--all of which are shared objectives--we believe that we now have a model that will prove to be effective.

Baroness Blatch: I have not been more disappointed in a reply in a long time. That was a seriously defective response. The Minister does not appear to have understood any of the arguments that have been proposed on the importance of the body that we are discussing. It does not comprise a local authority but a body that will undertake the most sensitive and, from time to time, dangerous work. Line management is absolutely crucial, as is responsibility for affairs at a local level. Many in the service will be deeply dismayed at some of the Minister's comments on the ineffectiveness of local boards and of some chief officers simply because they are not all employed by the Secretary of State.
	Does the Secretary of State really believe that he and/or the officials in his department have the time to tackle the conflicts that arise at local level? That will not result in the effective local delivery of a national service. Serious tensions will arise on occasion. People will be confused as to where responsibility lies. Such matters will be settled only in court. We certainly do not want that.
	The Minister used the phrase, "strong 'localist' background in our politics". I do not approach this matter from the point of view of having served in local politics. I certainly do not bring politics into it at all. There is a difference between us here. I believe that we should approach this subject from an apolitical point of view.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: On a point of clarification, I tried to say--I thought that I had done so effectively--that I understood the importance of local input. I thought that I paid the noble Baroness a compliment in referring to her background. I thought that she too would understand the importance of local input. I certainly do not want to denigrate that in any shape or form.
	It is wrong to conclude--as I believe the noble Baroness suggested--that we are critical of all aspects of local committees and local services. The Government simply want to ensure that we build on important local strengths but within an effective national framework.

Baroness Blatch: We are not arguing about the national framework. The service must be delivered locally. The profiles of areas differ. Crime varies greatly between rural areas, towns, cities, urban and suburban areas. Those areas all pose different problems, tensions and challenges for local people. I support the effective local delivery of the service. As I say, no one is arguing about the framework. However, the Government appear to be imposing central operation on the service. I believe that will work against effective local delivery and will place chief officers in an invidious position vis-a-vis local boards, local police authorities and the other agencies with which they work.
	The Minister has just said that he did not criticise the service. I hope that he will read his response in Hansard. The rationale for the proposed changes is that the boards and the chief officers have not worked well. As I say, I hope that the Minister will read his response. It is alleged that there has been no consistency of policy and that the Secretary of State needs to have central--

Lord Bassam of Brighton: If I may intervene--

Baroness Blatch: I hope that I may finish my point. It is alleged that the Secretary of State needs to adopt central control of the service for a consistent service to be delivered. There are some problems here. The Minister said that we want strong leadership, referring to the Secretary of State. I suggest that we want good leadership from chief probation officers. The Minister said that we need an overall national strategy. I do not argue with that. That constitutes a development of the national standards that we have had. The Minister said that we want consistency in the application of those standards. Again, I do not argue with that. A central inspectorate was mentioned to oversee that matter. That is the tool that the Secretary of State will use to assess the operation of the service.
	However, the Minister then said that the Government want a more diverse service. Of course we want a more diverse service as it needs to reflect the challenges that arise in each area. The Minister said that we want better accountability. Earlier I mentioned the powers that are not affected by the amendments. The Secretary of State will still retain the right of approval over the appointment of chief officers. He will still be able to appoint and remove boards. He will have control of 100 per cent of funding and allocation of funding. He will set overall objectives for the service. He will receive reports from the inspectorate and will be given regular statistical and financial information, audit reports and annual reports from each board. He will also have powers of direction and default. For goodness sake, those are sufficient powers!
	Our argument may seem trivial. The Minister may believe that somehow or other we misunderstand the matter. It is patronising to imply that as we have all been involved in local politics we should not worry our pretty little heads about the matter and that eventually we shall understand what is proposed. The letter that has been mentioned is patronising in suggesting that the boards have not "thought themselves into" the new service and that chief officers have not appreciated the fact that the service will be different. That maligns chief officers. I believe that they well know what lies ahead and that they are excited about it. They want to make it work. The Minister talked of ineffective local boards and said that we need central management. I am sorry that he should have said that.
	Before I decide what to do with the amendment, I hope that the Minister will say something about non-departmental public body status. Are these boards non-departmental public bodies? If that is the case, do they enjoy full NDPB status? What exactly are they? It is important that I receive a reply to that question before I decide what to do with the amendment.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I have two questions for the Minister. First, is he aware of any other comparable governance structure to the one proposed here that would give any assurance at all that this will not be a debacle? Secondly, under what circumstances and to what extent will the boards be able to order chief officers to do anything? If, for example, a board comes to the conclusion that it wants to adopt this policy or that measure, and a chief officer says that the Home Secretary gave the impression that he wanted a certain policy, what happens?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not sure that I shall be able to give the precise answers that have been sought but I shall endeavour to do my best. I do not think that one can describe local boards as non-departmental public bodies. Usually they are established on the basis of an arm's-length relationship with the department. However, in this case I do not think that one can accurately argue that to be the case. We are, after all, creating a national probation service and we intend to manage it as such.
	However, we are considering the status of the boards. We need to view this matter in a rather different light. This goes to the heart of the point that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, made. It is not easy to suggest comparable structures as this is a unique service. It is a service we are trying to align with other parts of the criminal justice system. We seek to create a national service for all the reasons on which I believe we are agreed; namely, the need to create strong, effective, firm and good leadership with a consistent application of policy and with a clear sense of purpose. As I say, this is a unique service. There will be change. I believe that there are differences as regards the positions that we have adopted on this matter. However, there is also a degree of consensus. We believe that the management arrangements that we seek to put in place will be effective. Time will tell.
	To take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, from time to time there may well be conflicts but we think that they will be few and far between. By establishing a clear sense of line management and management discipline, we believe that there will be fewer than in the past.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again. I am grateful to him for giving way. However, I must press the noble Lord. He talks about wonderful line management. What happens in the circumstances about which I speculated: the board says one thing and the Home Office says another. There is not a direction but simply a line of policy. Where is the line of management?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I thought that I had made it plain that one would expect the national service to ensure that there is effective line management and that it will come from the centre. We would not expect there to be the extremes of conflicts that the noble Lord envisages. The board will wish to direct the way in which the service operates. Ultimately the Secretary of State will be able to overrule the way in which the board operates. Regulations will delegate some issues directly to chief officers. That is made clear in paragraph 10 of Schedule 1.
	I do not see the service working in the adversarial conflict-driven way that the noble Lord describes. We think that the management arrangements that will be spelt out will be clear and effective and that we shall be able to resolve any of the problems and tensions that the noble Lord envisages. I do not think that it will happen in the way the noble Lord envisages.
	I recognise that it is an important debate. One will take note of what has been said. However, at this stage we cannot accept the amendment.

Baroness Blatch: The situation is even more depressing. The Minister did not answer the point of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. The Minister said that the boards can be overruled. He gave no example of where that occurs in any other form of governance. Chief constables are appointed by their local authorities but they are approved by the Home Secretary. Health trusts are appointed. I imagine that the short list is again approved by the Home Secretary of the day.
	The noble Lord does not think that these conflicts will occur. At this stage of legislation, we ask the Minister, "If this were to occur, what would happen?" It is not such an outlandish thought. Let me develop the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. All the senior management team will be direct employees of the board; but the chief officer will not. Let us suppose that all the senior management team, the people who work to them, and the board, having recognised the needs of the people of their local area, come to a conclusion that they want to do something. The chief officer would like to do it too because he sees the merits of the argument. However, he has another line of management to the Home Secretary who says something different. What would happen? I should like the Minister to answer that precise point. Will he also tell me whether it is true that the Cabinet Office is concerned about whether these bodies are NDPBs?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not aware that the Cabinet Office is concerned about the position of the boards.
	I understand the argument, but it is an extreme position. I am sure that the instances described by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will arise very infrequently. I do not see that there should necessarily be this conflict-driven management system. We think that the management arrangements will be effective.
	How does the noble Baroness envisage the current system managing the situations she describes? The current service does not deal with them as well as they could be managed. We believe that the management and line arrangements will be a more effective way of resolving some of the tensions that may have arisen in the past. I believe that we shall see marked improvements as a consequence. I accept that there is a difference of view but we shall reflect upon the points made today in an important debate.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask one last question. Can the noble Lord imagine a situation a few years ago when Michael Howard was the Home Secretary when he might have given a direction vis-a-vis the affairs of probation committees which was considered by the Labour Opposition at the time to be totally against the public interest, destructive and against the values that they now espouse in this Bill? Would the Minister wish all power to reside with the Home Secretary of the day to force through any measure he or she might like, however partisan or ineffectual, rather than having a set of local checks and balances which provide a source of power against central might?

Lord Dholakia: Before the Minister answers that question, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, posed a fundamental question on which the entire argument hangs. Are the boards non-departmental public bodies? The Minister has skirted around that argument. It has considerable bearing on a number of amendments I intend to move later. Will the noble Lord confirm, yes or no, whether the boards are NDPBs?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I thought that I had made clear earlier that we do not believe that they are NDPBs. The noble Lord's point is a debating point. If we thought, as we did from time to time, that the previous Secretary of State was wrong, we vigorously pursued the argument.

Baroness Blatch: The Minister has been kind enough to say that he will reflect on the issue. I wish to press the noble Lord once more. I assume from his answers that these are not NDPBs. The noble Lord used the phrase that he did not believe that they were. At this stage of the Bill, I expect the Government to be beyond doubt and sure. Does the noble Lord believe that they are not NDPBs, or are they not NDPBs?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I believe that they are not NDPBs.

Baroness Blatch: I cannot take the answer as other than "Don't know". The noble Lord is being equivocal rather than unequivocal.
	The Minister said that he will reflect on this issue. I hope that he will. It is, in his own words, an important debate. I hope that he will be open-minded until we discuss the matter again at the next stage, as we certainly shall. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 10A to 11 not moved.]

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 12:
	Page 46, line 12, at end insert ("; and in particular, the Secretary of State shall ensure that at least one member of the board shall be from each of the following categories--
	(a) a member of a county, borough or district council in the area of the board,
	(b) a justice of the peace resident in the area of the local board,
	(c) a member of the youth offending team").

Baroness Blatch: To be effective, a board must reflect the local people. A justice of the peace should be a member of that body, as should an officer of the youth offending team, which is an important body. It would be helpful to have clarification from the Minister. The concern is to have the balance of organisations and suitably qualified people in place; and to put in place consultative arrangements with the relevant agencies. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The amendment would constrain in statute the membership of the boards, which the Bill leaves to be determined by regulations. We do not believe that it is appropriate to specify their composition in the Bill and would prefer to lay regulations before the House on that in due course. I can give a firm commitment that we are persuaded of the need to make membership of the boards open to the widest range of people. The aim is for boards to have an appropriate balance of skills and experience and to reflect the make-up of the local community. I made that point in an earlier debate and I want to reinforce it now.
	We aim to have four magistrates and two elected local authority members on every board. We want as many people as possible to be encouraged to come forward. We do not want to narrow the field, as we believe that the amendment would do. We recognise and value the importance of the local authority link. There will be cross-overs in the interaction and interrelation of the services. It is very important that there should be a reasonable reflection of the local magistracy on the boards. We want a wide range of people to come forward and offer their services to ensure diversity of membership.
	I understand the noble Baroness's point, but we think that leaving the issue to regulations will give us the flexibility to ensure that the boards are diverse and, importantly, establish a link with the local magistracy and local authorities.

Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. I know some of the arguments about not defining the composition of boards in the Bill, although it is important to debate the balance of the boards and how they should work.
	The boards have been somewhat maligned in some of our debates so far. In their defence, we should say on the record that for a long time the boards have been unhappy about how they have had to work and about their composition. Most of them agree that they are too large and would like to be smaller and more operationally effective. The boards have waited very patiently. During the last two or three years of my tenure of office, there were regular applications through the usual channels for a legislative slot to make them more effective. We should recognise that they were at the forefront of pressing for that. The Minister may think that their current performance is not outstanding, but that is largely because of how they were set up some years ago. The boards have been looking forward to change but needed a legislative basis for it. They are now getting a legislative basis, but the changes will be rather different from what was imagined before. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 14:
	Page 46, line 12, at end insert--
	("( ) The Secretary of State shall ensure that the members of the board appointed by him are appropriately qualified to carry out the functions conferred on them by this Act.").

Baroness Blatch: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 17. I understand that Amendment No. 16 is grouped with them.
	I was receptive to the Minister's arguments on the previous amendment, but I believe that the issues dealt with in these amendments should be specified in the Bill. It is not frivolous to say that those appointed to the boards should be appropriately qualified. The boards will carry out important work, so it is essential that they do not contain people who collect committees--and there are a lot of them about. We need people who will make a real contribution to the management of their local service. I hope that Amendment No. 14 will be accepted.
	Amendment No. 15 is about consultation with certain key organisations that can provide a great deal of information to ensure that the right appointments are made. The amendment would not necessarily tie the hands of the Secretary of State, who will make the appointments. The boards will have to work closely with the magistrates' courts committee and the police authority, so they should be consulted, as well as the chief constable and the local authorities.
	On Amendment No. 17, I have always thought that appointing people for one, two or three years is not enough. There ought to be a minimum of five years' service in an area as complex as probation. I should like that written into the Bill. However, committees also need freshness from time to time. Fifteen years is a reasonable length of time to expect anyone to serve consecutively on a committee. I hope that the Minister agrees that it is reasonable to suggest that an appointment should be for a minimum of five years, with a maximum of three consecutive five-year terms. The Secretary of State will retain his ability to remove a member of the board if he believes that they have defaulted in their duties. I beg to move.

Lord Dholakia: I support Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 17, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I shall speak to Amendment No. 16, which would restrict the number of magistrates on the board and widen the membership further than suggested by the noble Baroness.
	The schedule regulates the composition of the newly established probation boards. Local probation services are currently managed predominantly by magistrates. Although we applaud those magistrates who volunteer to take on that onerous task, board members have been drawn from a limited circle. We need to widen it.
	I accept that the Bill allows for the possibility of board members being drawn from a wider group, although one of the members is rightly to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor from among Crown Court judges. The chairman and other members are to be appointed by the Secretary of State. It is vital that the membership of the board represents a wide cross-section of the community. We suggest that more board members should come from local businesses, community groups, housing associations, drug agencies, the voluntary sector, local councillors and other organisations with a stake in crime prevention and rehabilitation.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. There is probably not a great deal between us. We are talking mainly about the means to the end. We think that there should be a limit on the length of time that people can serve on the board, with a maximum appointment of perhaps two consecutive terms. Some changes may be needed to effect that.
	However, we need flexibility. My comments will not find favour with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, but we think that the issues are best dealt with in regulations. Amendments Nos. 14, 16 and 17 would specify issues relating to the individuals appointed to be members of local boards. We think that the matter is best dealt with through regulations, as Schedule 1 provides. We intend to place a limit on the number of magistrates and also to restrict tenure. Therefore, I believe that we are meeting the point that has been made. However, we feel that that is probably best done in regulations. It is currently undertaken in that way. It is legislation that we have inherited. Therefore, what we are doing is very much in accordance with how such matters have worked in the past.
	Amendment No. 15 would require the Home Secretary to consult a wide range of interests before making appointments. Although, on the face of it, that would be desirable, we believe that in these circumstances it would probably be unnecessary. However, robust appointment procedures which involve an element of consultation will be in place. I believe that the appointment process will find and bring forward the best individuals. We do not believe that a requirement exists, as the amendment anticipates, for extensive consultation in the way that has been set out, although we accept that consultation is very important.
	Therefore, we understand the spirit behind the amendments. We agree some of the points, particularly with regard to tenure and a limit on numbers of magistrates and perhaps of other classes and categories. However, as is usually the case in such matters, we believe that it is best carried out through regulations. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Blatch: I listened carefully to the answer. I should be more reassured if I thought that the noble Lord had not found the arguments interesting and persuasive but was prepared to adopt them, albeit in regulations rather than on the face of the Bill. Do the Government have it in mind, for example, to make appointments for not less than five years? Do the Government have it in mind--they must have something in mind because presumably the regulations are being formed at this moment--to limit the tenure of office? Do they have it in mind to introduce a system to ensure that the qualifications of people appointed to the boards are appropriate for the task in hand? And do they have it in mind to consult on the matter?
	If the noble Lord can say that the Government accept all those points and that they will appear in legislation, it will be more helpful than saying simply that they are very persuasive arguments but the Government will not accept the amendments.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Perhaps I can add further clarity. We feel that board members should be appointed for three years and for a maximum of two consecutive terms. However, a change to that may be required. For that reason, I believe that putting time limits, as set out in Amendment No. 17, on the face of the Bill would deprive us of the flexibility we may need. Of course, when people apply to become members of a board, we shall set out carefully and clearly a type of job specification, listing the qualities that we expect the candidates to have. After all, that is one of the processes and procedures which has developed usefully over the past few years and which is an important element of what we might describe as the Nolan principles behind public appointments.

Baroness Blatch: I hope that the noble Lord will think again about the period of three years. I am a member of a museum of which the sponsoring department is the MoD. I am a trustee of that museum and my appointment is reviewed every three years. The Government's record, not only in the MoD but in the health department and in many other government departments, for making appointments on time and in a non-bureaucratic manner is not good.
	The intention is to appoint to all those boards every three years. I do not know whether the process will be staggered, but one is in danger of having to make a whole block of appointments every three years. One will hardly be able to blink before the three years are up and one will be looking for another set of people or renewing periods of office. I believe that the nature of the work is complex and interesting. It seems to me that, if one asks people to give up their time in order to get to know the service well and to make a proper contribution when they are fresh to the work, five years is a better term than three years.
	I did not mention Amendment No. 16. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. However, I believe that the boards themselves were also concerned that they were not in a position to change the composition, requiring, as they would, legal authority to do so. Therefore, I do not believe that that amendment would be received with dismay. I believe that the boards would probably welcome some streamlining and the fact that there would not be a predominance of a particular group in the way that, on many boards, there is at present.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I welcome that observation. I believe that there is a degree of commonality on this issue between our Administration and the previous administration. I recollect that the previous government were keen to streamline boards and some streamlining was undertaken. I remember dealing with the consultation on that matter. I believe that streamlining will produce more effective and more focused boards, and it is helpful that there is now agreement on that. I suspect that we shall have rather smaller boards than we have had in the past. As I am sure the noble Baroness will recall from her time in the Home Office, boards tended to be 20 or 30 people strong. We believe that in the region of half that number would be more appropriate. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her supportive comments.

Baroness Blatch: I thank the noble Lord. A great deal of informal streamlining took place on some of the boards. However, they were concerned that they were possibly trading illegally and were concerned about obtaining legal authority for what they wanted to do. Therefore, to that extent, this proposal is welcome. The Minister has given his word that he will reflect on these matters and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 15 to 18A not moved.]

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 19:
	Page 47, line 16, leave out from beginning to ("the") in line 17 and insert--
	("7. Each board shall appoint a secretary and a treasurer.
	7A. Regulations may provide--
	(a) for").

Baroness Blatch: This amendment relates to paragraph 7 of Schedule 1. The appointment of a secretary and treasurer in the new bodies will be crucial. The regulations may provide for tenure and circumstances in which such appointees cease to hold office or may be removed or suspended from office. However, my amendment makes it explicit that the board shall appoint a secretary and a treasurer.
	I understand that it is the Government's intention that the boards should comprise local people reflecting local communities. I believe that the Minister has confirmed that today. Boards will also be responsible for the stewardship and expenditure of considerable public funds and for contact with other organisations. Therefore, it is essential that they have access to proper advice. I know that not only am I advocating this through my amendment but the Central Probation Council also considers the posts of secretary and treasurer to be vitally important in ensuring the proper conduct of business.
	Again, it is important that, instead of regulations, it is stated on the face of the Bill that each probation board should have the obligation and responsibility for appointing a secretary and a treasurer. The regulations could then provide for the conditions to be filled by the appointment. I beg to move.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Amendment No. 19A, in my name, achieves the same purpose with, dare I say it, neater stitching than Amendment No. 19. It is significant and I hope that the Government will accept it.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I believe that the issue here is fairly simple. It is whether the appointment of a secretary and treasurer to local boards should be required on the face of the Bill or whether it should be left to regulations. We take the simple view that it is probably best left to regulations. It is a minor amendment but we do not believe that it necessarily improves the quality of the Bill.
	As currently drafted, there is a provision for regulations to require local boards to appoint a secretary and a treasurer. This amendment would make that an absolute requirement and perhaps restrict unduly the scope of the regulations to controlling aspects of the appointments and the appointees' duties.
	Management and operation of the new probation service must be strong and effective at local level. I believe that we are agreed on that point. However, that is not necessarily achieved by simply replicating in statute the present requirements for a secretary and a treasurer. Those appointments may be entirely appropriate now but they may not be so in the future. We take the view that dealing with such matters in regulations rather than on the face of the Bill provides a sensible degree of flexibility for the future. For that reason, I suggest to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that they should not press their amendments this evening.

Baroness Blatch: I am not going to fight the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, about which is the better amendment. I have not studied his amendment. Indeed, I saw it only for the first time this morning. If it achieves the same end, I should be more than happy to accept his amendment.
	I was dismayed by that reply. My suspicions were aroused by it. Is the noble Lord saying that it is bad to put this provision on the face of the Bill because it gives an absolute responsibility to the boards for appointing a secretary and a treasurer? Is the future flexibility needed so that the Home Secretary can do that? I cannot understand what the noble Lord means when he refers to being tied down and to the power being an absolute one for the boards to appoint their own secretary and treasurer. The only flexibility of which I can think, which may be in the mindof the Minister, is for the Home Secretary to do that as well.

Earl Russell: If I understood the Minister right, he is telling us that a board may at some future time, operate without a secretary or a treasurer. Was that his intention? If he is saying the board can operate without a treasurer, then I wonder whether Amendment No. 58 in the name of my noble friend Lord Dholakia about the need for adequate resources is even more urgent than I had supposed.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I should not want the noble Baroness to go away with the thought in her mind that somehow we are suggesting other than that these matters should be simply left to regulations. We are trying to achieve flexibility and not central diktat. That seemed to be the drift of the noble Baroness's concluding comments. That is not what we are about at all.
	It may well be that other titles and other deployments of members of the board in terms of the way in which they work are more appropriate in the future. We do not wish to be tied down precisely in legislation. Dealing with this matter in regulations means that we are providing that flexibility.
	I am quite happy to take away this point and have another look at it, if that helps the Committee this evening. However, it is the flexibility question about which we are most concerned. Perhaps the matter is best left there at this stage of our discussions.

Baroness Blatch: This is a matter to which we shall have to return. It is worrying. The noble Earl has aroused another suspicion. Either the Secretary of State may wish to place secretaries and treasurers onto the boards, or worse, they should exist without them.
	The work which the boards will do is extremely complex and legalistic. We live in a more litigious world now. The work of the boards will be considerable. Managing complex budgets, contracting out services and buying and selling their services will mean that they will need first-class legal, technical and accountancy advice. That can be obtained through a good secretary and treasurer. It seems to me that absolutely no harm is done by putting that responsibility on the board. In fact, I go further and say that there should be a responsibility on the board to have a secretary and treasurer.
	I do not believe that there should be flexibility. The Minister has not told the Committee why that flexibility is needed in the future unless, as I say, it is not to make the appointments at all or that somebody else should make those appointments. We shall certainly return to this matter, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 19A and 20 not moved.]

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 21:
	Page 47, line 40, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert--
	("(1) The Secretary of State shall pay to a probation board, in a timely manner, such amounts as shall be necessary for each board to discharge its responsibilities.").

Baroness Blatch: This amendment is concerned with cash flow and borrowing powers. Arising from the move to 100 per cent Home Office funding, local authorities will no longer act as bankers for the probation boards. There is a serious anxiety in this regard based on previous experience; namely, that the Home Office arrangements for making payments, which will be the only source of grant, may leave boards in serious difficulties.
	Again, I go back to records of departments on this subject. Government departments are not known for making timely payments. They do a great deal of lecturing other people about making timely payments but very often the Government are in default. While the actual mechanism for payment is not a matter for primary legislation, I know that chief officers would wish to see the responsibility of the Secretary of State properly acknowledged on the face of the Bill.
	Moreover, it would be helpful if the Minister were able to say something about borrowing powers. I understand that throughout ministerial comment made in the other place about borrowing powers, no one suggested that boards should have unfettered borrowing powers. Chief officers are not asking for that. But they ask for the facility to cover emergencies; for example, in the eventuality of late Home Office payments to which I have just referred. The Secretary of State may authorise specific or even general powers in that respect. We hope that, in practice, a general authorisation will be given to probation boards to borrow money in the event of an error or in the event of a delay in Home Office payments. I beg to move.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Amendment No. 21A stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Dholakia. It covers almost the same ground as the amendment just moved by my noble friend Lady Blatch. I hope that in his response the Minister will not plead the need for flexibility. I see that flexibility is a quality which is on the side of government but certainly not on the side of these boards, which do not want flexibility in the matter of financing any more than they want it in the matter of having a treasurer and a secretary.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am sure they want certainty.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Indeed.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: We do not have any quarrel with the fact that the Government should pay appropriate amounts to local boards on appropriate days. As I am sure we all agree, that is a function of good government. But the same applies to all areas of expenditure which require government to make grants to organisations. It is understood and, of course, it is something that should happen. In our view, there is absolutely no need to clutter the bell with what are perhaps unnecessary embellishments by way of the amendments. I understand the spirit behind them but they are an embellishment. This is not an amendment which we feel we can accept, although, of course, I shall go away and persuade my colleagues in the Home Office that they had better make sure that the grants are made on time.

Baroness Blatch: What happens if they are not?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: This is one undertaking which I dread to give. However, I am sure that appropriate borrowing powers will be in place and that the Secretary of State will approve those powers. I am sure that boards will not be left without the necessary cash to carry out their functions and responsibilities.

Earl Russell: The number of Ministers who have given that reply must by now run well into four figures. Some of them have been optimists.

The Earl of Erroll: I had not intended to intervene in this matter because it is not my subject at all. However, from personal experience I assure the Committee that Ministers do not pay their bills on time. My wife has experienced this in relation to countryside matters. Schemes have been approved by the European Parliament but the money has not been forthcoming. It has been necessary to put contractors on stand-by and schemes have been delayed. The Government do not pay their bills. They withhold money. I merely advise the Committee that we should not expect such matters to run smoothly.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I cannot forfend but to dwell for a moment on that wonderful expression "cluttered with embellishments". I wonder whether the Minister views as a cluttering embellishment his own entitlement to remuneration. However, I let that pass.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think that my family would see it as essential.

Baroness Blatch: But I am sure that his bank manager has given the noble Lord borrowing powers. Again, we have said enough to demonstrate that, whatever happens, delayed or untimely payments must not put the service at risk. Whatever the arrangements are, it is absolutely essential that some facility is made available to the boards to make sure that they can continue their important work. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 21A not moved.]

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 22:
	Page 48, line 12, after ("holding") insert ("or managing land and other").

Baroness Blatch: In speaking to Amendment No. 22 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 23, 24, 72, 74 and 75. This is another important issue and one where I believe there is a real difference of opinion between the Home Office and those of us concerned about the ownership and management of property within the service.
	In relation to property, and because of many of the functions undertaken by the service, the type of property occupied by the probation service is important. In relation to any fears held by the Home Office that the Probation Service at a local level cannot be trusted to have control and management of its premises and that it may do something extravagant or silly which would detract from and tap the resources that should go to other parts of the service, the Secretary of State has so many levers on the operational management of the service that it is possible for him to keep full control either through the inspectorate or through more direct intervention if he thought that there was mismanagement.
	The three main assets that future boards will need to control in order to fulfil their statutory responsibilities will be staff--that is in-house staff and contracted staff--finance and premises. There is already doubt about the ability of boards to secure the compliance of staff in the event of a conflict between the board and the chief officer. Funds will be provided only by the Home Office. It is now proposed that the premises from which the board's responsibilities are exercised will be owned by the Home Office and managed by an organisation or organisations with which the board has no contractual nexus.
	I read the Minister's letter carefully and it seems that there will be some draconian restructuring of the premises inhabited by the probation service. But to suggest, as the Home Office Minister has in correspondence, that,
	"there is some way to go before the probation service takes fully on board the concept of being a unified national entity",
	belies the enormous efforts and the way in which the Probation Service has welcomed the proposals that have been put forward by the Home Office. The Minister went on to say:
	"It does take a leap of imagination for the present committees to see their successor boards as a different type of body, with different responsibilities and accountabilities, no longer independent but a vital component in a national organisation".
	That much maligns the committees and their ability to change with the times in the interests of providing a better service. If some of the changes that have been suggested today are not accepted, they will be in some difficulty about providing that service, and they will be right to be sceptical about it. However, this reveals much more of a misunderstanding in the Home Office about the legal responsibilities of bodies corporate and therein lies the key question that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked earlier about NDPBs. Also therein lies the problem of the actual status of the board and the capacity of the board to identify with aspirations for the new service.
	The proposal in relation to property fundamentally weakens the future role of boards. Boards must have the power to exercise those responsibilities. The probation service is a criminal justice agency, managing difficult and potentially dangerous people. Boards have a duty to their staff and to the community to manage all aspects of "dangerousness" and that includes property. I know that since the Second Reading debate the Central Probation Council has held useful discussions with Home Office officials about the future management of property. Errors and difficulties have been acknowledged but it is unlikely that the discussions will be completed before October. It would be helpful to have some light thrown on the progress of those discussions and the likelihood of them being completed before the Bill passes through this House.
	As the Bill stands, it could well be unlawful for a probation board to enter into any utility contract--gas, electricity and so on. The board is given power only to enter into contracts ancillary to its functions. If it is not a function of the board to hold or manage land, such absurd situations as being unable to provide or control lighting, electricity for computers, telephones and the like would arise.
	These amendments provide for a more operationally effective solution. The Secretary of State will continue to have considerable powers through the inspectorate and through direct financing of the service, so there is no need for the Secretary of State to worry. There will be full co-operation and where there is not, the Secretary of State has the powers to sequester. Therefore, in the interests of the management of the service and the sensible delivery of the service at a local level, I believe that this is an important aspect of the Bill and that property ownership and management should be the responsibility of the boards and the chief officer. I beg to move.

Lord Dholakia: I speak with some difficulty on Amendments No. 22 and 23. We have already talked about who employs probation officers and chief probation officers and now we are talking about who owns and manages probation service premises.
	Earlier the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and I asked the Minister whether the boards that will be set up will be non-departmental public bodies and his answer was that he did not believe that they would be. We asked for a categorical assurance on this matter, and we have had no such assurance whether they are or not. We simply have the belief of the Minister.
	This causes confusion because the issue of non-departmental public bodies was discussed two years ago in the prison/probation review. At that time it was said:
	"While the sponsoring department could set out a policy framework within which the NDPB will be required to work and control its resourcing, it would not normally be empowered to tell the body how to spend its money or how to meet its statutory obligations. Executive NDPBs therefore preserve considerable independence from central government, and would, in all practical ways, operate much like existing probation committees".
	So if you are an NDPB that is the provision for you. However, since the review, nothing appears to have been done about NDPB status. The reason is that in July 2000 the Cabinet Office wrote to the Minister saying that the 42 boards created by the Bill would be NDPBs. Am I right? I believe that the Home Office tried to obtain an exemption, but neither the Treasury nor the Cabinet Office would agree. In other words, to all intents and purposes they are NDPBs unless the Treasury or the Cabinet Office agrees with the Minister.
	I can go further. Non-departmental public bodies have accounting arrangements particular to themselves and if the Minister cannot get Cabinet Office agreement to an exemption there need to be specific amendments to the Bill. Everything that we have discussed would be absolute nonsense. If the Minister is not right, is there time for a specific amendment? The National Audit Office and the Audit Commission are concerned about the delay and confusion in the Home Office. The Audit Commission says that there is no good precedent for an NDPB not appointing its own chief executive and not owning its own property.
	The confusion has left many financial questions unanswered including those of property, employment and so on. Have monies been correctly spent? Can the probation committee expect its end of year accounts to be closed by the district auditors with so much uncertainty? The Probation Service needs to plan next year's budget now, but it does not know whether it will be accountable to the new directorate or to the Public Accounts Committee. Is the chief officer or the chair responsible for the budget?
	NDPBs clearly imply arm's-length governance. That goes against the thrust of the Bill. If the boards are to be NDPBs they will have a strengthened status but what will be the status of the directorate? If boards are not financially accountable to the directorate, what basis is there for the directorate to have any national authority? I believe that the Minister owes the Committee an explanation as to whether they are NDPBs.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I speak from the other end of the NDPB telescope, so to speak. How is one to envisage the system working if control over all property and contractual matters rests in London? How can the Government conceivably, efficiently or knowingly authorise a board in Northumberland or Cornwall on the issue of premises? It is a bureaucratic nonsense. Governments are becoming like clearing banks where, in order to have some idea of one's balance, one has to go via Aberdeen and Belfast. The proposition does not stack up and I can only endorse what has already been said; that is, whether or not they are NDPBs, the boards must have power over their own property. Frankly, to deny that to them is a striking demonstration of the Government's lack of confidence in their abilities.

Lord Hylton: Perhaps I can raise a small drafting point. Schedule 1, page 48, refers in line 12 to "property" and, further on in line 18, to "land". Is it intended to draw a sharp distinction between those two categories of asset?
	When I was being instructed as a young chartered surveyor, I was told firmly that "land" included any structures that may be placed upon it. I am not clear about this wording. Perhaps the Minister can throw some light on it.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Perhaps I may deal with the last point first. My understanding is much the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I am not sure that there is a sharp distinction. However, I shall ruminate on his point and provide him with a response at a later date.
	As I understand it, Amendment No. 22 would allow boards to manage land. But Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 would prevent boards from managing land unless they had the approval of the Secretary of State. That drafting slightly puzzled me. Amendment No. 72 would give ownership of the probation estate to local boards instead of the Secretary of State, and Amendment No. 74 would allow the Minister to introduce a scheme giving the probation boards any rights or interests in property which he considered appropriate.

Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. If the technical details of the amendments do not achieve what I intended and what noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches mentioned also, the Minister must forgive me. We did a lot of the drafting ourselves and it may not be correct. But I hope he will not use that as an excuse for not addressing the specific point we made that it is important for the service to manage its property at a local level and that ownership also makes more sense. We can always correct the amendments or, if the arguments are acceptable to the Minister, no doubt the department will do it for us.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that point of explanation. No doubt it will be helpful to us. Just to clarify one point, I want to say that the purpose of my observation was simply to obtain a better understanding of what the noble Baroness is after.
	Amendment No. 75 appears to provide that stamp duty shall not be chargeable to probation boards for any transfer or grant of property. I believe that was the amendment's intention.
	Essentially, there is a difference of view here. Our view is that we want to see the effective and efficient management of the Probation Service estate. Amendments moved by the noble Baroness and supported by other noble Lords would seek to relocate the management or ownership back to the local boards. We believe that it is right for the land and property of the Probation Service in England and Wales to be managed centrally. In that way, in our view, there will be economies of scale in the provision of the services necessary to manage land and property. We take the view that central management will also enable a more strategic national approach to be taken to acquisitions and disposals.
	The noble Baroness used the term "draconian" in her description of the moves and measures we are taking in this part of the legislation. However, she acknowledged that some of the culture change and change of view in the way the estate should be managed was necessary. The noble Baroness also acknowledged that important discussions are taking place between the officers in the management of the service and Home Office officials.
	We all have the simple objective of trying to obtain the best from the estate that we manage. But at the end of the day there is a difference of view in relation to the effective and efficient management of the service. We do not believe that it is appropriate to go along with the course recommended by Members opposite. We take the view that a sprawling estate can better be directed centrally. Noble Lords opposite clearly take a different view.
	I suggest that the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment. We do not see merit in it. We see the central ownership and management of the property as being entirely consistent with the other parts of the package for the creation of a national Probation Service and we want to see that consistency carried through in that relationship.

Lord Dholakia: Perhaps I can intervene before the Minister sits down. I put a specific question in relation to the non-departmental public bodies. A great deal hinges on the discussions that took place earlier. Can the Minister give a categorical assurance at this stage as to whether or not the boards are NDPBs, rather than whether he thinks or believes they are?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: We had this discussion earlier. I felt I went as far as I could in setting out how we viewed the situation. I am happy to take away the point the noble Lord made in his contribution to this debate. No doubt it is an issue to which we shall return.

The Earl of Erroll: Perhaps I can come in as a referee on this. I listened to the questions put forward and did not intend to intervene. However, the Minister has been asked clearly several times whether or not the new bodies will be NDPBs. Each time he dodged the argument and said he "believes", he "thinks", he "feels", he "may" or he "should". But surely it is a statement of fact as to whether they are or are not. I can see that a lot of arguments hinge on this point and the question has been dodged right the way down the line. It is not a question of taking this point away; either they are or are not NDPBs. As somebody sitting in the middle listening to the argument, I believe it merits a straight yes or no answer.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The latest advice that I have been given is that, strictly speaking, they are not NDPBs.

Baroness Blatch: They are not NDPBs. It is not that the Minister believes they are not; we now have the answer that they are not.
	The Minister was concerned about my cynicism when I spoke of draconian arrangements. First, I find it absurd that the Home Office thinks it can run and manage the property of all these boards throughout the country. It is such an absurd idea that I am almost lost for words to describe the nonsense in the suggestion. But my cynicism comes from the words used by the Minister himself. He said that in the past the property has been owned and occupied by the service in a way which leaves a lot of scope for efficiency savings and rationalisation; some of those savings can only be realised if the estate is owned centrally.
	What plans does the Home Office have? What is it about to do? If the service is allowed to manage its property locally, and if there is a remit to it from the Home Office to say that it should be managed efficiently and effectively, then the inspectorate should be used to ensure that it is delivering that remit. If it is felt that the boards are wasting money on premises or are being over-extravagant--I find it almost impossible to understand how one would know because I remember in the days when I was responsible for the service there were constant appeals from the various probation offices for approval to spend money on new premises or to refurbish premises and money was always a serious constraint--then the inspectorate should investigate. So the idea that there are vast estates of property throughout the country that are not being properly managed is absurd.
	Serious issues arise in this regard. A point was raised by either the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, or the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in relation to minor contracts with electricians, water boards and all sorts of people locally. Are the Government seriously saying that they will send in a civil servant to help them? That is mind-blowing in its stupidity. This is an issue to which we shall certainly have to return. But it is good to know that we now have an unequivocal answer that those bodies will not be NDPBs. I expect the Cabinet Office will be relieved that at last it has a definitive answer, which I understand it has been trying to obtain for some weeks.

Lord Dholakia: I am pleased that the Minister said that the bodies will not be NDPBs. However, as in July the Cabinet Office said that they would be, can he say whether he has had a definitive reply from either that office or the Treasury? If so, can we know when the change of heart took place at Cabinet and Treasury level?

Lord Harris of Greenwich: I agree with what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and by my noble friend about the property issue. The idea that civil servants will make decisions on these issues is an extraordinarily ill-judged approach. My noble friend Lord Roper reminded me of the words of an old friend of mine, the late Douglas Jay. When he was a junior Minister in the Attlee government he said that the gentlemen in Whitehall really do know best. Douglas Jay suffered a great deal from that statement and the noble Lord is getting close to it.
	Solemnly suggesting that government officials will take decisions on all these issues is centralisation run riot. The noble Baroness was right to say that we shall return to it at the Report stage and I have no doubt that we shall vote on it.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: We have had an illuminating debate and I hope that I have been helpful in providing further clarification. It needs to be placed on record that there can be little dispute that improvements can always be made to the management of any part of the government estate. We are trying to secure the best benefits from a nationally organised Probation Service and achieve greater economies of scale, greater efficiencies and ensure that the estate is managed well and effectively on behalf of the local service. That is the way we see the system working. Whether or not the Probation Service is a non-departmental public body does not affect our view of the importance of central management in the management of the estate.
	We simply want to achieve the best use of the service and I have no doubt that the noble Baroness will be the first to confirm the importance of that. Furthermore, when governments have sought to bring together localised services in a national format it is important that they seek to improve the quality of management of the national estate. There is nothing to stop boards carrying out minor issues relating to the management of premises and the Bill simply prevents local boards from owning property. Management will be reflected on locally and some of the issues which the noble Baroness raised--for instance, the hiring of electricians, plumbers and so forth--will undoubtedly be closely supervised by the local board.
	The amendments would do nothing to advance that case and we believe that things are best managed centrally in the creation of a new national Probation Service.

Baroness Blatch: We shall return to the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.]

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 25:
	Page 48, line 36, at end insert--
	("( ) The local board shall publish the plan (or any modified plan) prepared under this paragraph in at least two newspapers circulating widely in its area, and otherwise as it thinks fit or as the Secretary of State shall direct, and shall make it available for public inspection during ordinary office hours, either at the board's offices or at some convenient place appointed by the board.").

Baroness Blatch: The amendment relates to local government and simply proposes that the reports should be published so as to inform local people about what is happening. Although the service is national, they are local institutions accountable to their communities. It is an important amendment which the Minister, had he been sitting on this side of the Committee, would have pressed me to support. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not sure whether I would have argued the same case had I been on the Benches opposite. Amendment No. 25 would require each board to publish its annual plan in a very specific way and Amendment No. 34 would require very specific publication of the requirements of board plans. We believe that the amendments can be achieved in a more flexible way--and I use that word in the context of these amendments--by using the Secretary of State's powers of direction under the Bill in Schedule 1 paragraph 14.
	While we are all in favour of transparency and accountability, which are two important terms in regard to the Bill, Amendment No. 25 is far too prescriptive and proposes an unnecessarily complex and expensive procedure. We oppose the restrictions on the arrangements which boards might make to deliver services and regard it as unnecessary to specify that the organisations and individuals concerned should be appropriate. We are also opposed to the onerous arrangements proposed for publicising how services are to be delivered. Our new boards and other provisions in the Bill provide for transparency and accountability in the operation of the service.

Lord Hylton: I can understand the Minister's objection to the word "shall" in Amendment No. 25. Would he look more favourably on the proposal if the amendment instead used the word "may"? That would give local boards the option of publicising what they wanted to do, which would be in the public interest.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I believe that the local board is best placed to determine that and that it is unnecessary to specify it in the amendments. It may well be that local boards want to publicise plans in the way suggested but I do not believe that constraining them in a straitjacket, as suggested in the amendments, is the best way forward. That is best done locally. If boards of their own volition wanted to publicise in the way suggested, that would be fine.

Baroness Blatch: There is an interesting irony because the noble Lord has spent a good deal of today arguing about central control and direction. However, as regards this issue it is for boards to decide what they want to do. If a board does not want to tell the world what it is doing so be it; if a board does want to, so be it.
	I believe that there should be a requirement on the boards to be open about their affairs; that it would fit naturally under national standards and is important in a centrally controlled service. I shall not go to the barricades about the specific wording appearing on the face of the Bill, but it would be helpful to know whether in regulations or circulars to the service there will be a requirement for boards to be open about their arrangements and plans and their annual reports.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am prepared to give an undertaking to consider the implication behind the amendments. Whether they are acceptable as drafted is another question. However, like the noble Baroness, I believe that it is wise for such bodies effectively to communicate their intentions as regards organisation, management and effectiveness of the service. Therefore, I am prepared to take that point away and I thought that the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, was most helpful in that respect.

Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 26:
	Page 49, line 27, leave out ("prescribed persons") and insert ("any person").

Baroness Blatch: In moving Amendment No. 26 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 27. Paragraph 18 of Schedule 1 reads:
	"Regulations may require each local board to make and publicise arrangements for dealing with complaints made by or on behalf of prescribed persons in relation to things done under the arrangements made by the board under section 5".
	Why prescribe the persons? Why should it not be possible for anyone who complains about the service to be given a proper hearing? Why should any Home Secretary say that one category of person may complain but another may not? It seems to me that if someone has a complaint against the service it should be dealt with.
	Amendment No. 27 provides the service with an opportunity for defence. We all know that vexatious complaints are made about services and it is important that there should be an independent view of them so that they can be ruled out at the outset. It is important also that the service itself has the opportunity to be defended. Amendment No. 27 states that an independent person shall be appointed; that the complainant or local board may appeal against that person's decision; and that the independent person or tribunal may be appointed in respect of more than one board--so that there could be an economy of scale by having someone cover more than one board area. The idea of having prescribed persons is incomprehensible. Anyone who has a complaint against the service should be heard and their complaint dealt with properly. I beg to move.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I strongly identify with the arguments advanced in favour of the amendment.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: As to Amendment No. 26, the complaints procedure ought to be only for the use of individuals who have personally been at the receiving end of activity by a board or its staff. On Amendment No. 27, we will be setting up an independent complaints procedure in secondary legislation.
	The Bill aims at ensuring that each board has a complaints procedure that will allow prescribed groups of persons who feel that they have suffered from the way that the board or its staff have acted to have their complaint properly heard. The scheme's purpose is not dealing with representations from any persons--such as contractors, partner organisations, sentencers or staff representatives. The term "prescribed persons" makes it possible to put those groups outside the scheme. The complaints mechanism is not designed to bring in third parties. It must focus on the prime users of the service. To go outside that would be a recipe for complaints chaos. We need clearly to identify who can use the complaints service and who is ex-parte to it.

Baroness Blatch: The Minister has named all the obvious people with the right to complain, but others are affected by the way that the service operates locally who may wish to avail themselves of a complaints procedure. I do not agree that the matter should be dealt with in the way that the Minister suggests. Any person should be allowed to make a complaint, which should be heard and dealt with without being considered vexatious. Conditions could be set out--such as if the service has caused a personal grievance or a grievance to family or property.
	I feel strongly that it ought to be the right of anybody who is particularly aggrieved by the way that the service impacts on them--directly or indirectly--to have their complaint heard. There has to be a defence too for the service, which is built in by my second amendment.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 26) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 71; Not-Contents, 114.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: moved Amendment No. 27A:
	Page 49, line 29, at end insert--
	(" . The Prisons Ombudsman shall have comparable functions and powers with regard to the probation service as he does with regard to the prison service.").

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: This amendment seeks to buttress the improvement to the Bill sought by the previous amendment. I understand that the Government may be minded to allow the prisons ombudsman to have responsibility for the workings of the new service. Amendment No. 27A is a probing amendment to discover whether that is the case in the hope that the Government will allow the proposal to be put on the face of the Bill rather than left as an informal arrangement or the subject of subsidiary legislation. This is an important matter. The role of the ombudsman in our national life is now well established and enjoys a great deal of public confidence. We on this side of the Committee believe that the prisons ombudsman could perform a valuable service with regard to the new boards, whatever they are ultimately called. We hope that this amendment commends itself to both the Committee and the Government. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: I rise to support the amendment. This is one of those amendments in respect of which I am fairly open minded as to what ends up on the face of the Bill. If, however, it is the intention of the Government that the Probation Service should have access to the ombudsman it should be a statutory matter and thus reflected on the face of the Bill. The reason for my Amendment No. 45 is to give statutory force to the use of the ombudsman for both the Prison Service and the Probation Service. In supporting the other amendment I also support Amendment No. 27A and look forward to the Minister at least being accommodating on this matter. Not only should there be an informal desire on the part of the Home Office that there should be access to the ombudsman but it should be given statutory force.

Lord Hylton: I expect that this pair of amendments has considerable merit. However, I hope that if they were accepted they would be entirely without prejudice to the need for separate inspection services for the Prison Service and the Probation Service.

Baroness Blatch: I rise briefly to support that. Inspection of the service is very different from access to an ombudsman to resolve particular issues regarding individuals.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Baroness makes a point that I intended to make in beginning my response. These issue should be kept separate. The amendments seek to extend by statutory regulations the remit of the non-statutory prisons ombudsman--perhaps the Committee should remind itself of that--to cover complaints about the functions of the national Probation Service for England and Wales. They would not, however, put the ombudsman, with or without his extended remit, on a statutory footing. Both amendments are defective. The functions of a non-statutory body cannot be extended by statutory means, which is one of the problems with the amendments.
	The Government have announced their intention to extend the remit of the prisons ombudsman to cover probation. We aim to do so once the national probation service has been established. The prisons ombudsman is non-statutory and the remit cannot be extended by statutory means. We are, however, fully committed to putting the joint ombudsman on a statutory footing once the parliamentary timetable allows. These amendments, sadly, do not have that effect.
	We announced on 27th July that we intended to extend the remit of the prisons ombudsman to cover probation. We aim to do that once the new service is in place. The prisons ombudsman is an administrative post and his remit can be extended only by administrative means. For those reasons we must oppose the amendment. But we have the clear intention to remedy the non-statutory footing of the ombudsman service as soon as parliamentary time permits. I am grateful to those who have supported that notion. However, I hope that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment this evening.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: We have probed and the Minister has satisfactorily responded. I am happy to withdraw the amendment on the basis of his reply.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 1 agreed to.
	Clause 5 [Functions of local boards]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 28
	Page 3, line 12, leave out ("(for example)").

Baroness Blatch: It would be helpful to have the Government's assistance as regards the amendment. The amendment seeks to remove the words "for example". Subsection (2) of Clause 5 gives two examples and nothing else. Clearly, as the Minister knows, the work of the service covers very much more. Given that the aims and functions are spelt out, why is this provision necessary? Clause 5(2) provides:
	"In addition to making arrangements for provision to be made by its staff, a local board may ... make arrangements for functions of the board to be performed on its behalf by the organisations",
	and,
	"make arrangements with individuals who are not members of the board's staff".
	Can the Minister throw any more light on the provision? It is not clear whether the words "for example" are followed by paragraphs (a) and (b). I ask him to explain exactly what other arrangements both he and perhaps his officials have in mind. I do not regard this as elegant drafting, but then this is not an elegantly drafted Bill.
	Local boards should be free to establish partnership arrangements with organisations such as the police or local authorities--my understanding is that that will be a requirement for them anyway--which will form part of the local structure set up under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. So it makes sense that they should be able to deliver their services on occasion through such partnership arrangements. All of that is taken as read, because certainly that is the thrust of the Minister's intention for the service. It just seems otiose. I beg to move.

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Rather untypically on this occasion, I disagree with the noble Baroness. I thought she was on the side of giving the boards more power. These words indeed do just that. They give powers not merely as specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) but others which are implied by the words "for example". I confess that I am not aware of another Bill which uses that formulation in the grant of powers. Perhaps the Minister, in responding, will lead us to another Bill. We are told that these are not non-departmental public bodies. We would rather that they were. We want them to have as much power and as much authority, autonomy and independence as is consistent with a national service. I oppose the amendment.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: In the past I have probably argued against having in legislation expressions like "for example". I am scratching my head metaphorically to recall when that might have been. Perhaps the drafting is inelegant. Nevertheless, I think it achieves its objective. I think that in this respect the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and I are paddling in the same pool. We want that flexibility. We want it to be there locally. The amendment proposes a minor drafting change which would not--I hate to say this to the noble Baroness--improve the Bill. It would, sadly, fetter the discretion of local boards to make whatever arrangements they saw fit to deliver and administer local services. If the amendment were by some freak of parliamentary procedure to find its way on to the statute book it would have the unfortunate, perhaps even unintended consequence, of restricting the arrangements that could be made to those as described in Clause 5(2)(a) and (b), and slightly qualified by the concluding two lines. I hope that the Committee will not be tempted to support the noble Baroness in her particular objective.
	Paragraphs (a) and (b) are really all about other ways of delivering a service. What would be in the gift of the board in these instances is to find other mechanisms, means or organisations for delivering part of the service, perhaps in a contracted form. We are trying to retain flexibility so that that can be carried out in the best interests of the service.

Baroness Blatch: I am happy to accept that criticism. I do not think that it is usual parliamentary language to use "for example" in this way. But I accept the arguments that have been put and I would not want to do anything that fettered their powers to deliver an effective service. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 29:
	Page 3, line 13, after ("with") insert ("appropriate").

Baroness Hanham: In moving Amendment No. 29, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 30, 32, 35, 36, 46 and 47. From a previous discussion with the Minister, I fear that he may decide that I am trying to dilute what he proposes. Although my noble friend Lady Blatch has withdrawn her amendment which sought to remove the words "for example", I press on regardless.
	The amendments are designed to limit the use of the powers in these subsections to organisations, individuals, persons, accommodation--those are the words used--which are relevant to the responsibilities laid out in those parts of the Bill to which they apply. This may seem a minor matter but where one is giving responsibility to a body to contract and make other similar arrangements, it must be clear that those contracting arrangements are made with bodies or others which are appropriate to the nature of the service. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful for the clarity of explanation given by the noble Baroness in advancing the cause behind these amendments. However, I am afraid that I shall have to disappoint her. I think that we have been hit by a bout of what I might call "appropriateitus" here. I thought I counted eight "appropriates" in this series of amendments, or perhaps in amendments which had earlier been grouped that way. I do not think they improve the quality of the drafting of the Bill. We are prepared to accept that one can improve the drafting of any Bill. But I am afraid that in this instance the amendments do not.
	Specifically, Amendment No. 215 would probably fetter the Secretary of State's powers to contract out when that could achieve better quality of service and/or perhaps better value for money in the operation of a service. In inserting the term "appropriate" I rather suspect that the amendment could render as meaningless anything done by the Secretary of State. I also have a powerful impression that it could raise doubts as to whether the Secretary of State could act inappropriately on occasions where the statute does not require him to act appropriately. It might put a large question-mark over the Secretary of State's actions.
	Amendment No. 48 would unnecessarily formalise in legislation who should be consulted if a decision is made under the powers in Clause 8. The Secretary of State will consult as appropriate. It might be wise, and necessary, to consult more widely than perhaps the amendment itself suggests. I urge the noble Baroness not to press the amendments as I do not think they will do what the noble Baroness intends them to do. We will endeavour to ensure that the Secretary of State properly carries out consultations wherever appropriate.

Baroness Hanham: I am not wholly surprised by the Minister's response to the amendment. I hear what he says. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 31:
	Page 3, line 17, at end insert--
	("( ) make arrangements with any organisation or individual under which any services provided to the board by its staff are also made available to the organisation or individual,
	( ) charge for anything done under arrangements under this section.").

Baroness Blatch: I have tabled this amendment to establish beyond doubt the ability of probation boards to buy and sell services. Before I turn to the specifics of the amendment, perhaps I may quote from a letter sent to me by the Minister following Second Reading, which has proved to be most helpful. On the second page of that letter in the bottom paragraph, he states that:
	"This gives much more freedom than exists at present, where certain activities must be carried out by 'a probation officer'. In addition, under clause 5(7), boards will be able to buy services from other boards . . . as they can at present, and sell them to other boards, which is currently unlawful".
	If, say, I represent a board and the Minister represents another board, then when I buy a service from the Minister, he must be selling that service to me. My function of purchasing the service would be legal, but the Minister's function of selling that service to me would be illegal. That is a bizarre circumstance. If selling to a board is deemed illegal, it is not possible for me to buy from the Minister because it is illegal for him to sell to me. Some clarification of the exact meaning of that sentence would be most helpful.
	The amendment would give to probation boards the same facility as that given to CAFCASS under the same legislation. Legal advisers maintain that the Bill as it stands does not allow boards the necessary power and that the power to do one thing specifically--namely, under Clause 5(7)(a), to
	"make an arrangement with another board",
	and, "charge the other board"--implies no power to do something not mentioned. Indeed, if "make an arrangement" included charging, there would have been no need for Clause 5(7)(b). Therefore the statement in Clause 5(2)(a),
	"make arrangements with organisations or individuals"
	requires the same specific reference to charging.
	I appreciate that this is a technical point, but if the Government are saying that these powers are to be conferred, then it is important that the legal authority is in place for them to be exercised. Furthermore, it would be helpful to know how one may buy a service from a board when another board is not in a position to sell such a service. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I suspect that the noble Baroness has made a valid point as regards the drafting and I shall wish to study closely her comments. However, I think that the amendment is unnecessary. In Clause 5(7) we achieve the effect that she is seeking, although I can see the merit in her line of argument.
	The provisions enable the Probation Service to act as an effective law enforcement agency with the aims that we have already discussed in our important debates on Clause 2. The primary purposes here are to reduce reoffending, protect the public and properly administer punishment to offenders through combination orders and licences.
	Amendment No. 31 would enable boards to provide services to other organisations and individuals. As drafted, it could dissipate the effect which we feel is necessary for local boards to direct towards the probation work needed for their areas. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, it is our view that provision has already been made in Clause 5(7) where boards may provide services to other boards and to charge accordingly for those services. As we see it, the boards may buy and sell under the terms of the Bill as it stands. The amendment is therefore unnecessary and, on that basis, I suggest that the noble Baroness should find herself able to withdraw it.

Baroness Blatch: I sought to make the distinction between the intentions on the part of the department and what has been put on to the face of the Bill. I know what the department wishes to see and for that reason I suggest, on the basis of legal advice, that the Bill does not deliver that.
	I should be most grateful if legal advice could be taken between this and the next stage of the Bill. I shall certainly check the point again, but it appears that the power is not in place to achieve what is sought by the Minister and the Home Office. I make no argument with the Minister here. We are all seeking the same end; namely, that local boards should be free to buy and sell services. It is therefore important to take legal advice. I believe that we each have a lawyer--I do not believe that they have met--and that they hold opposing views on this point. It is important to resolve the matter.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: As ever, I am always happy to try to oblige the noble Baroness. I shall be happy to hold informal discussions outside of the Committee on the detailed points here and I shall facilitate that. Furthermore, I shall try to clarify the point in correspondence, or perhaps our respective lawyers could meet. I am sure that we shall be able to settle what is most likely only a minor difference between us. It is important that this is resolved because there is no fundamental disagreement here.

Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 33:
	Page 3, line 19, at end insert ("; but no individual may be so designated without the consent of the chairman of the board or the chief officer.").

Baroness Blatch: If other organisations or individuals are to perform the functions of officers of the board, it is important that they should receive the explicit consent of the chairman and/or the chief officer. This is a simple point, but it is an important one. Concern must be shown for the quality of the delegated functions. For that reason, we feel that this should appear on the face of the Bill in order to set out clearly that such matters are under the control of and the direct responsibility of the chief officer--or at least we think that that is the case. Having said that, the quality of the service is certainly the responsibility of the boards. Specific consent is important when functions are to be delegated outwith to a third person. I beg to move.

Lord Hylton: Perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words which I believe I should have contributed when the Committee was discussing Amendment No. 31. Subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 5 are vitally important and I should like to underline the need to avoid remanding in custody those who have been charged and are to be brought before the court. That underlines the importance of the role of bail hostels and other assistance offered to those remanded on bail.
	I should like also to draw attention to the need to provide halfway houses for those coming out of prison, which is also covered in these provisions. In general, this will help to reduce the level of crime. Finally, I should like to stress the importance of providing assistance to the victims of crime.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I hesitate to say this, but I believe this to be a slightly fussy and perhaps unnecessary amendment which, in our view, might clutter up the face of the Bill. I do not intend in any way to sound unfair or unkind here. It is self evident that individuals contracted to perform the functions of a service will need to be properly appointed. However, to require that this should be done in person by the chairman of the board or the chief officer (unless these functions were formally designated in regulations) would be to impose an unnecessary level of additional bureaucracy. For that reason, I cannot find favour with this amendment.

Baroness Blatch: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 34 to 36 not moved.]

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 37:
	Page 3, line 24, leave out ("accommodation") and insert ("supervision").

Baroness Blatch: I regard this as another key amendment to the Bill. As the Bill is set out, it appears that the bail hostels are likely to be used for just about anyone who happens to be homeless in the area at the time, whether or not they have had any connection with the service. The clause gives to the boards the function of,
	"providing accommodation in approved premises for persons who have at any time been charged with or convicted of an offence".
	If the statistics are correct, one-third of all men under 30 have a criminal conviction; and pretty well half or three-quarters of the population at some time in their lives have had a conviction. So it becomes available accommodation to anyone who at any time has had a conviction. The kind of remit that this allows is causing considerable concern to bail hostels.
	This provision and the Explanatory Notes give a wide discretion for the use of hostels which has troubled the Probation Service for quite a long time. The amendment seeks to find out from the Minister whether it is the Government's intention to widen that use. It would be helpful to have clarification from the Home Office as to its precise meaning. I know that inquiries have been made by the chief probation officers but so far they have not received any clear definition.
	While flexibility is welcome--it is of course important in the Probation Service--there is a major concern about control, or lack of it, over residents who are not in the hostel by order of the court, under licence or otherwise formally under the supervision of the Probation Service. The proposal could be taken to mean more serious offenders, less serious offenders or those who look as though they might offend. It is absolutely vital that this matter is resolved before we go any further.
	The issue affects many of the rules--that is, the statutory instruments--in relation to admission policies, regimes, discharges, breach of hostel regulations and, indeed, who pays for people referred to the hostel other than through the court or the parole board.
	The purpose of approved hostels will alter if this provision in the Bill is passed. The requirement to reside in an approved hostel is the most severe community punishment available to the courts--it is not about accommodation--and has hitherto been reserved for those needing very close supervision. I know detailed discussions have been going on--it would be helpful to know what stage they have reached--but, under Clause 5(2)(b), "providing accommodation" is not good enough. If the Minister intends to leave it at that, it seriously widens the definition.
	The Home Office can no longer evade answering the chief officers' questions about the definition, which will be very wide. It will simply mean accommodation, with or without supervision, for anyone who at any time has been charged with or convicted of an offence. It even extends to people charged with an offence. Many people are charged with an offence but are not convicted. So it is not only the convicted population but people who have merely been charged.
	It has to be "supervision". Clause 5(2)(b) should read:
	"Providing supervision in approved premises for persons who have been charged with or convicted of an offence".

Lord Bach: I think the noble Baroness is referring to Clause 5(3)(b).

Baroness Blatch: I am sorry. I have transposed all my amendments on to this and I cannot see my own writing. I do apologise. The noble Lord is right, it is Clause 5(3)(b). I stand corrected.
	But it is important that it should now read:
	"The provision that may be made in pursuance of such arrangements includes providing services to any person and, in particular . . . giving assistance to persons remanded on bail or for whom officers of the board have responsibilities . . . providing supervision in approved premises for persons who have been charged with or convicted of an offence".
	It is important that there is some modification of this part of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Hylton: I suggest that, in the context of this amendment, we need some degree of flexibility as to premises. Some will be provided by the boards; others will be provided by housing associations and other voluntary organisations. If we accept that, the term "in approved premises" is probably not an over definition. As to the question of who pays, it seems to me that the necessary rent or charges should be met either out of housing benefit or from a person's own resources.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I hope that I am addressing both Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 in responding to the noble Baroness's important peroration.
	As we see it, arrangements to contract out approved premises are entirely consistent with the wider objectives of "best value" and other reviews. Approved accommodation will still be subject to a stringent regulatory framework, and boards will be fully involved in drawing up contracts and local rules for approved premises. That is a very sensible way forward.
	Arrangements to house and supervise ex-offenders in approved premises are occasionally made in the case of offenders who, although they are no longer subject to statutory supervision, still represent a considerable risk to the public. In our view, the clause as drafted would not reduce public protection. Adequate safeguards will be in place for boards to control the operation of accommodation managed by third parties through new regulations for approved accommodation. Locally agreed rules and the contractual arrangements will of course follow. We see no reason therefore to exclude approved accommodation from the wider arrangements for boards to contract out service delivery functions.
	Division of responsibility for supervision is highly undesirable and could compromise public protection and enforcement. In our view, the amendment would reduce public protection. I do not think that that is what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve. The effects would be wholly undesirable in view of the high risk that this small but occasionally highly dangerous group of offenders can present to the public. Voluntary supervision and accommodation in approved premises beyond the supervision period are, in our view, an invaluable way of mitigating that risk.
	I hope that with that explanation the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment. As drafted and argued, it would undermine the intention of the legislation and perhaps even undermine the intention of the noble Baroness's amendment.

Baroness Blatch: All I have to go on are the words in the Bill. "Supervision" is not mentioned: I want to put the word in. The Minister used it all the way through when speaking to the amendment--but it is not in the Bill. Under this, it is possible to provide accommodation--no supervision, come and go as you please--to anyone in the land who at any time has been charged and/or has a conviction.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: That is a patently absurd observation. It will never be the case that one-third of all males between the ages of 20 and 35 will be lining up and placed in accommodation. It goes without argument that supervision is important--it is a part of the Probation Service's activity and an accepted role and responsibility--but, in our view, it is not necessary to place that into the legislation. That is why it is drafted as it is.

Baroness Blatch: That muddies the water even more. It states here that to be given accommodation a person has only to have had a conviction and/or to have been charged with a crime somewhere in their past. So if someone who was convicted of a driving offence many years ago voluntarily comes along to the bail hostel for accommodation--no supervision, no referral from the court, no referral from any other source--that person could be given accommodation under the Bill. The Minister has not referred to the question of who pays.
	It seems to me that all the additional sentences--for example, even for people who are on curfew orders, for those who have extended parole or for those who under the new arrangements will be supervised in the community--are court-based. Most of the referrals are court-based, as is the case for those on remand. It seems to me essential that a person referred to one of the bail hostels (for that is what they are) in order to support the criminal justice system should not be someone who is merely homeless. If that is what the Home Office means, it is important for it to provide the Probation Service with a proper definition. If it does mean simply taking someone off the street to give them a bed for a week, a fortnight, a month or a year, then the Minister must include in the Bill the words that he used in speaking to the amendment; namely, that people who are in approved accommodation, are in the process of being supervised for one reason or another. That is the only point of going to a bail hostel. I can think of people imprisoned for sex offences who on release could not trust themselves to go straight out into the community and who voluntarily went through the system. But they were supervised occupants of the hostels, not free agents, although there was a regime under which they could come and go. But the Bill as drafted states,
	"providing accommodation in approved premises for persons who have at any time been charged with or convicted of an offence".
	If that is the case, the definition of who goes into a bail hostel must be changed. If, as the noble Lord said in responding to the amendment, such people are to be supervised, my first amendment least should be accepted.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think the noble Baroness is reading something into the clause which is not there. She is trying to impute something that is not a fact. The clause needs to be read with Clause 9, where the matter is clear. The term "approved premises" is defined in Clause 24 as,
	"premises approved under section 9".
	Clause 9 makes it clear that,
	"The Secretary of State may approve ... bail hostels ... [or] other premises in which accommodation is provided for use in connection with the supervision or rehabilitation of offenders".
	It should be clear that Clause 5(3)(b) must be linked with Clause 9.
	It is not our intention that the hostels are there simply so that people who may have committed an offence can seek to locate themselves there and may walk in off the street. They are there for a specific purpose. There is no intention to accommodate those who do not need supervision. I hope that that provides the noble Baroness with the clarification that she finds necessary. If there are still outstanding points and questions, we shall endeavour to provide extra clarification outside this Chamber.

Baroness Blatch: That does not help at all. It is possible under Clause 9 for the Home Secretary to approve premises,
	"in which accommodation is provided for use in connection with the supervision or rehabilitation of offenders".
	However, under this provision there is no statement that it is subject to Clause 9(1)(c). It simply refers to,
	"providing accommodation in approved premises for persons who have at any time been charged with or convicted of an offence".
	It does not answer any of the specific points that I put to the Minister--who would refer; would they be volunteers; who would pay; does the referral necessarily have to come through an agency; would it just be accommodation for someone who was down on their luck in the community? None of those questions has been answered by the noble Lord. If the provision is subject to Clause 9(1)(c), it should be made clear that the referral is in connection with supervision. It would help so much if the Government would accept the one word; namely, providing "supervision" in approved premises for persons charged with or convicted of an offence.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I believe that I have clarified the matter. I am sorry if the noble Baroness does not accept the point. I shall study her remarks carefully. No doubt we could provide extra clarification if required. We should then look closely at the noble Baroness's amendment to see whether the linkage was necessary in the manner suggested. I hope that the noble Baroness will see fit to withdraw the amendment. I am grateful to her for drawing attention to what she clearly believes to be an important issue; namely, a definition that is absent from the Bill. I do not think that it is. However, if it is and the provision is deficient, we shall return to it.

Baroness Blatch: I am grateful for that response and I shall withdraw the amendment. The chief probation officers are also very concerned about the matter. They have had discussions with the Home Office and, to date, they have not received a satisfactory answer. It is a matter that must be reflected upon. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 39:
	Page 3, line 41, at end insert ("; and in doing so, the Secretary of State shall have regard to any representations made to him by the chief inspector").

Baroness Blatch: This amendment seeks slightly to restrict the Secretary of State's powers. I am concerned about the amount of power that is acquired through the Bill, as was mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. In Clause 5(8),
	"It is for the Secretary of State to determine whether or not any provision made by a local board under this section is sufficient"
	My amendment would state that,
	"in doing so, the Secretary of State shall have regard to any representations made to him by the chief inspector".
	It seems important that the chief inspector is in a position to advise the Secretary of State in this instance, and that ought to be on the face of the Bill. Under the provision, a local board,
	"may make an arrangement with another local board under which it provides on behalf of the other board, in respect of the other board's area"--
	the language is convoluted--
	"any services which it could provide under this section in respect of its own area, and ... may charge the other local board for any services it provides in pursuance of the arrangement".
	Subsection(8) goes on to state that,
	"It is for the Secretary of State to determine whether or not any provision made by a local board under this section is sufficient".
	Having,
	"regard to any representations made to him by the chief inspector",
	seems a sensible amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: This amendment falls into the unfortunate bracket, "unnecessary". The inspectorates exist in an advisory capacity. We do not think it appropriate for them to have a statutory role in making decisions as to whether the boards have made proper provision to carry out their functions--which is what the amendment would amount to.
	The Secretary of State will be accountable for the operation of the national probation service for England and Wales as a whole, so it should be his decision, and his alone, as to whether any local board is doing what it should be doing by way of fulfilling its functions.
	However, the important qualification is that the Secretary of State can, on those occasions where it is right, appropriate and sensible, call on the advice of the chief inspector at any time if he needs the chief inspector's support or information in informing his decisions. I can understand where the noble Baroness is coming from. I do not believe that her amendment is necessary. I am sure that the Secretary of State will wisely call upon the chief inspector to advise and inform a decision about the way in which a board is carrying out its functions. On those grounds, the amendment is unnecessary.

Baroness Blatch: I shall not press for this amendment to be on the face of the Bill. It is important that the Home Secretary of the day should use the inspectorate to inform any matter that he requires. To take the worst scenario, if he is unhappy about the arrangements that a board is making, it seems important to use the inspectorate to provide a professional view. In this situation the Home Secretary has become desk-bound; therefore, using the knowledge and expertise of the inspectorate would be a wise choice. I accept that it would not need to be done in every instance. Therefore, I shall not press the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 5 agreed to.
	Clause 6 [The inspectorate]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 40:
	Page 4, line 4, at end insert--
	("( ) The Secretary of State shall make regulations for the establishment of performance standards for the inspectorate and for independent assessment of the inspectorate against such standards.").

Baroness Blatch: The logic of this proposal should be self-evident. No organisation should be allowed to proceed without checks and balances. If new arrangements are to be introduced following the current Home Office consultation on the future of prisons and the probation inspectorates, such a process may become even more important. Whatever the outcome, the opportunity should now be taken to establish performance criteria for inspections. My understanding is that that happens in other departments. The real issue is: who inspects the inspectors? It would be helpful if the Minister were able to say something definitive about the plans of the Home Office for the merging of the inspectorates. I have already expressed a reservation in that respect today. Some updated news would be welcome. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Like other inspectorates, the Inspectorate of Probation is answerable to the public, the Government and Parliament, not a third party whose accountability is unclear. The Bill already provides a clear framework within which Ministers may direct the inspectorate on the inspection of matters of particular concern. The Government are committed to the open scrutiny of public services. The reports of the inspectorate have a critical part to play in that process. The Government have no intention of unreasonably delaying their publication: they greatly inform the way in which we view services.
	Statutory inspectorates like the Inspectorate of Probation are established by Parliament to give the public, the Government and Parliament, to whom it is required to report, an independent view of the health, or otherwise, of our public services. I do not believe that it would be right to superimpose a further body on the service, which is really what lies behind the amendment. If we were to do so, it would blur the accountability and leave the position unclear as to how we could judge its actions. I can think of no other inspectorate where this has occurred. The Bill already provides a clear framework within which the Secretary of State may specify matters that he wants the inspectorate to examine, as well as the scope and timing of reports.
	The noble Baroness asked about the proposals to review the two inspectorates. We shall deal with that issue in a later debate. However, it goes without saying--indeed, it is public knowledge--that consultation is taking place. The process will come to a close at the end of October and we shall want to review the fruits of that consultation. I am sure that it will provide us with some important pointers as to ways in which we can achieve yet more improvements in the quality of the work of the inspectorate--an inspectorate that already has a very high public standing and is well regarded.
	The proposed amendment would blur accountability. I do not believe that it would improve independence. For those reasons, the noble Baroness would be well advised to withdraw the amendment at this stage.

Lord Lucas: Before my noble friend replies, perhaps the Minister could give me some comfort and assure me that the Secretary of State will have the power to ask the inspector to, as it were, submit his own actions for the scrutiny of research or for some other suitable quality check. I know that it is a different set-up, but one of the problems with Ofsted is that it utterly refuses to have its methods and doings subject to any academic or outside scrutiny. This leads to considerable doubt being cast on its conclusions, especially when it is seeking to impose such standards on others.
	This inspectorate is under rather more direct ministerial control than Ofsted. However, on a quick reading of the Bill, I did not notice any mention of a power for the Minister to say, "These are the standards that you are setting for certain establishments and which you expect them to achieve. We require that you submit yourselves to inspection by a university department so that the process through which you are putting other people can be audited to ensure that it is the best thing to be done. There should be proper evidence to show that what you recommend produces the results that you say it will". In other words, there should be a level of control to stop an inspectorate going off down a rather eccentric path. This would avoid the dangers into which, I am afraid, Ofsted has fallen.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I enjoyed the noble Lord's helpful intervention. Indeed, he made a most useful point. His comparison with Ofsted was most interesting. However, I am not sure that I can offer the noble Lord the comfort that he seeks. I believe that the functions and aims set out in the Bill will determine the way in which the inspectorate has to carry out and conduct its work. Clearly the service has to match those aims and functions. It will be an important part of the inspectorate's work to ensure that the local boards and the chief officer properly fulfil and carry out their duties. Those are the important elements of the service.
	Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to reflect a little on what he said. I shall read his argument in Hansard, because it is possible that his intervention is deserving of a fuller response than I have given this evening. I am grateful to him for his contribution, which was both helpful and interesting.

Baroness Blatch: There is no question that I was suggesting that the Home Secretary, or the Secretary of State of the day, should interfere with the professional judgment of an inspector. The latter is independent and should be given a totally independent remit. However, as was the case in education, it is only right that standards are established as regards the way in which the inspector works. I was not sure whether the Minister said that regulations for the establishment of the inspectorate would include specifying the standards at the outset. If that is so, the inspector would have a properly defined set of standards with which to work.
	As for independent assessment, I was not even suggesting that it should be another body. However, it seems to me that there will need to be independent assessment at some point on whether the inspectorate is living up to and conforming to the standards set out either in regulations or by way of circulars. If that is the case and standards will be set, I am entirely happy. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 41:
	Page 4, line 9, leave out ("Below").

Baroness Blatch: I shall be brief. The amendment relates to a rather pedantic, editorial point. I am sure that I shall be given a clear answer in response. Can the Minister tell me why the word "Below" has been inserted at the beginning of subsection (4)? I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is unusual for the noble Baroness to admit to being pedantic. I am sure that the Committee will be most grateful for that admission. Amendment No. 41 is defective. I am advised that the word "below" has the effect of ensuring that all references in the Bill to the "Chief Inspector" and members of the inspectorate refer respectively to HM Chief Inspector of Probation and HM Inspectorate of Probation. I assume that the purpose of the amendment was to achieve that clarification.

Baroness Blatch: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 6 agreed to.

Lord Windlesham: moved Amendment No. 42:
	After Clause 6, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:CHIEF INSPECTOR NOT TO HOLD OFFICE OF CHIEF INSPECTOR OF PRISONS
	(" .--(1) The Secretary of State may not exercise the power conferred by section 6(2) to appoint a person as chief inspector who also holds the office of Chief Inspector of Her Majesty's Prisons.
	(2) A person who holds the office of chief inspector may not be appointed to the office of Chief Inspector of Her Majesty's Prisons.").

Lord Windlesham: This amendment has been tabled in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. It raises topical matters of some importance and, I suspect, of some controversy. Therefore, I should like to take the opinion of the Committee as to whether the debate should be deferred until after the dinner break or whether we should continue at this point. I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, whose Unstarred Question is the next item of business, is sitting in his place. Indeed, I also see some other speakers waiting for that debate in the Chamber.
	I should welcome an indication from the Front Bench as to whether I should proceed now or delay the debate until after dinner.

Lord Bach: I understand from the Clerk at the Table that it is possible to adjourn the debate on an amendment of this kind before any decision is taken. I notice that some of those who are to speak in the following debate are not present in the Chamber as it is not yet 7.30. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will move his amendment.

Lord Windlesham: I welcome the chance to move my amendment. However, I thought it might receive a warmer welcome if I gave noble Lords the opportunity to discuss it after the Unstarred Question. The Minister who is to reply to the Unstarred Question is not yet in the Chamber. Therefore, it may be convenient to proceed with the amendment now.
	The aim of the amendment is to ensure that there should be no merger of the offices of chief inspector of the national probation service and HM Chief Inspector of Prisons. Currently there are separate inspectorates for probation and prisons, each headed by a distinguished and effective chief inspector. But their roles are different. Inevitably there is some overlap as many convicted offenders are likely to spend part of their time in custody and part under supervision in the community. The two current chief inspectors, Sir David Ramsbotham and Sir Graham Smith, both distinguished public servants, have estimated that, at a maximum, 25 per cent of their time is taken up with work that could be described as joint; the remainder being directed either at what goes on in penal institutions or what goes on in the community. To try to put them together under one head would, in the opinion of the current Chief Inspector of Prisons, reduce the effectiveness of both.
	I was invited--as perhaps were other Members of the Committee--to contribute to a consultation that is currently taking place on future options for ways in which the two inspectorates might work together more closely. In my reply I argued-- and I summarise the argument now--that the ethos of the Prison Service and of the Probation Service is, and always has been, fundamentally different. Joint working to reduce offending and to protect the public sounds effective enough as a slogan, but it does not take full account of the way that the principal tasks of the two services differ, and will continue to do so.
	Security and discipline lie at the heart of the Prison Service. The first task of the prison officer is to ensure that offenders sentenced to imprisonment remain in prison for the authorised period. The need to avoid disturbances, the most serious of which may lead to temporary loss of control, is formative of attitudes towards security and discipline. The inspectorate is, and should be, primarily concerned with what happens inside the prisons. Are they secure? Do the conditions in which inmates are held correspond with what they are supposed to be? How effective are the precautions to prevent drugs being smuggled into, and then traded within the establishment? Are the managers and prison officers properly carrying out the onerous tasks with which they are charged?
	It is important to stress this aspect because there has been an unprecedentedly long interval since there have been any notorious escapes or major prison disturbances. I believe that absconding is also at a lower level than in the past. But we should never forget that when major incidents occur--as they have done in the past and will again--they shake public confidence in the prison system more than anything else.
	As we are all aware, in recent years the independence and outspokenness of successive chief inspectors of prisons has become a beacon of light in the penal system. Their frank reports, sometimes based upon unannounced visits, have done more to illuminate bad practice, security lapses and unacceptable conditions than any other single source. The chief inspector needs to be someone who understands the workings of a disciplined organisation, and by his personality can command respect, inside and outside the Prison Service. Replacement of that function by the kind of appointment outlined in the consultation document would be a retrograde step.
	The Chief Inspector of Probation also has a central role in the penal system, although in a markedly different context. In complete contrast with the Chief Inspector of Prisons, he is seen not as a critical outsider, but in many ways as the focal point and head of a decentralised service. As we know from our debate, that will change with the forthcoming reorganisation of the Probation Service and the appointment of a national director. Thought will need to be given to what should be the nature and responsibilities of the post of chief inspector. But one prerequisite stands out: it should be kept entirely separate from the remit of the Chief Inspector of Prisons. That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Dholakia: My name is also added to the amendment, whose purpose is clear; namely, to control the powers of the Secretary of State and to prevent him from appointing,
	"a person as chief inspector who also holds the office of Chief Inspector of Her Majesty's Prisons".
	Some months ago in a Starred Question I raised the question of the Government's intention with regard to a prison/probation inspectorate. The Government were, to the best of my knowledge, non-committal. However, it was obvious from the number of supplementary questions that followed that many noble Lords could not support a move that would bring Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Probation and Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons under one control. I ask myself a simple question: why tamper with a system that works well and has delivered all that is expected of it?
	The Government's consultation paper mentions developing the joined-up approach. They say that evidence tells them that this will prove most effective. I shall, of course, await the Minister's spelling out of that evidence. I do not question his intentions, but so far the Government have not produced any evidence to prove the effectiveness of such an arrangement because such a situation has never arisen before.
	What are the facts? The impact of merging two inspectorates would blunt the effectiveness of both. The criminal justice system can be oppressive if controls are not established at various stages of the process. We welcome the independence of the police inspectorate. We on this side of the Chamber supported the establishment of the inspectorate of the Crown Prosecution Service. No one would argue that a seamless system requires a single inspectorate looking at various aspects of the criminal justice system. We do not have a seamless criminal justice system, yet we are moving in that direction. Each of the agencies has a specific role. It requires specific expertise to ensure that the system operates with fairness.
	HMI Prisons has made a considerable impact on the way in which our prisons are run. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, cited examples of that. Judge Stephen Tumim, and now Sir David Ramsbotham, have been fearless in their condemnation of practices that are unacceptable in our prisons. Have the Government consulted them? Like most other people, I am sure they would say that a unified service is unacceptable.
	Then we have the probation inspectorate. The inspector's recent report on race issues in the Probation Service highlights what needs to be done. The detailed inspections promise changes for the good. It keeps the Home Office on its toes. It tells governors and staff which are unacceptable practice in our closed institutions. The resulting publicity is good for the accountability of the Home Office. It also builds the confidence of the community and, more importantly, families and vulnerable prisoners know that the inspectorate is keeping an eye on the conditions and treatment that inmates receive.
	No one can doubt that inspection reports have helped to change prison conditions and probation practices. However, I suspect that the Home Office is weary of inspections--more so those of the Chief Inspector of Prisons because his reports normally do not make happy reading and always make headlines in national newspapers.
	There are some sound examples where unified probation/prison arrangements work well--for example, in Denmark and Canada. There are combined, unified services providing a single service. We have not reached that stage in this country and are unlikely to do so for some considerable time. When the Prison Service is stretched to the limit, and we are not sure how the newly established probation service will work, it is a backward step to establish a single inspectorate.
	I believe that the current arrangements have worked well. They have the confidence of the public and the client groups, and they provide a dedicated focus to their distinctive roles. That should continue. The public want a system they can trust. We shall oppose any move that breaches that trust. The amendments are designed to achieve precisely that.

The Lord Bishop of Lincoln: I speak as bishop to prisons, and have made already a submission on behalf of the Board for Social Responsibility, of the Church of England, to the Home Secretary on this point. I support the amendment.
	The critical issue is security and the conditions in prisons. In this Chamber, we have debated reports of the Chief Inspector of Prisons to successful and useful conclusions. I want to voice my concern and that of many in the community that the posts of the Chief Inspector of Prisons and the Chief Inspector of Probation should be amalgamated. I can see that there is a minimal amount of overlap. However, my plea is that we take seriously this proposal. With all the force I can, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia.

Baroness Blatch: I shall not repeat the arguments. They have been argued powerfully. I said earlier that I had reservations about what might happen to the inspectorate. I understand from the Minister that consultations are in progress at present about the future of the inspectorate for the Prison Service and the Probation Service. It is important that we establish some first principles at this stage. The argument is unarguable. I wait with interest to hear from the Minister.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: These are important and interesting arguments but they are being conducted in the wrong place at the wrong time. The fundamental problem is that the amendment amends the wrong Bill. This Bill does nothing to establish a joint inspectorate, or one inspector for the two services. The amendment is flawed because it prejudges an important discussion, debate and deliberation about the inspectorate we wish to develop and deliver.
	I have not heard today an argument against having joined-up services within the criminal justice system. No one has put forward that point. However it has a bearing on the issue. The purpose behind our consultation exercise is to ensure that we gain the best from having a more joined-up system of inspectorate and to discover how best those inspectorates can work together.
	We do not seek, and the consultation exercise does not propose, to merge the two inspectorates. We recognise that the Prison Service and the Probation Service perform many separate functions. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, accepted in part the argument that there is a cross-over. The estimate of the chief inspectors is that there is a 25 per cent cross-over of one kind or another. In part, that makes the case for a relationship between the two inspectorates. Although I accept the argument that the inspectors are looking at different matters, in some respects they are considering the same issues, in particular the supervision of offenders. It is important to recognise that people go from prison into probation supervision, and into supervision in the community. There are similarities and areas of commonality. They are looking at the same client group.
	We have launched an extensive consultation exercise. We shall listen carefully to the fruits of that consultation. We want to gather views as to the best way to achieve closer working relationships. I do not think that it would be right today, here and now, to forestall the outcome of that important debate.
	It is worth reminding ourselves that more than one third of those sentenced to custody will spend some part of their sentence under Probation Service supervision. Important decisions about release, conditions of supervision and custody depend on the two services working together in a coherent way. We look to the inspectorates to ensure that they work in a coherent way.
	We have not made up our minds on the best option for the two inspectorates. We have made clear that no decisions will be made until responses to the consultation exercise which ends on 31st October have been fully considered.
	I want today to underline this important point I have sought to make before in this Chamber. We have no intention of weakening the rigour, robustness or independence of the inspection processes for either service. I view the need for a strong, authoritative inspectorate working with a clear set of standards to help drive up performance as in the best interests of these public services. We need that independence, robustness and rigour to ensure that that objective is secured.
	We expect to reach a decision as to the way in which inspectorates can best work together and deliver the services they are intended to deliver by the end of the year. At that stage we shall make a clear statement of our intended policy to this House so that it can be debated properly as it should be. I do not think that it would be right to pre-judge those deliberations and that debate today in a Bill which merely replicates the current inspectorates and carries them forward in this new piece of legislation. Consultation is in place. We want to hear from Members of your Lordships' House. We have already had the benefit of the advice and views of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. I am grateful to other noble Lords for their contribution to the ongoing debate. However, I urge the Committee not to go along the path of the amendments today. To do so would be to close off an important and valuable option that might be available to us. I emphasise the word "might".

Lord Windlesham: It is a time for blunt speaking. It is common knowledge that the present Chief Inspector of Prisons and his predecessor, Judge Stephen Tumim, have been thorns in the side of successive Home Secretaries. Their energy and candour in exposing the many flaws in the prison system have been combined with unusually persuasive communication skills. Those two factors have made them the conscience of the penal system. There must be no watering down of their remit, or limiting their scope by merging the office of the Chief Inspector of Prisons with the Probation Service.
	This is a straightforward, easily understood issue in which party loyalties should play no part. I was tempted to take the opinion of the Committee, but I accept some may feel that, important though the issue is, this short debate might be slightly out of place in a Bill dealing with the reorganisation of the Probation Service. With some reluctance, and with an assurance from the Minster that he will discuss the matter and make sure that our views are known in the Home Office before any decisions are taken, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bach: I beg to move that the House be resumed. I suggest that the Committee stage does not begin again before 8.40 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.

Burma

Lord Alton of Liverpool: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider measures to bring to justice those responsible for genocide and abuses of human rights in Burma.
	My Lords, my Question asks Her Majesty's Government to consider the remedies open to the international community in the light of the grave human rights abuses and genocide committed by the Burmese military regime. At the outset, I thank those members of your Lordships' House who have taken a long-standing interest in these issues for their willingness to participate this evening.
	This brief debate is particularly timely in the light of the recent reports about the barbaric treatment of Mr James Mawdsley, a British human rights campaigner. A report in yesterday's Sunday Times said that the United Nations working group on arbitrary detention and arrest had found entirely in James's favour, stating that he has been subjected to 10 violations of international law.
	Just over a year ago, before he began his 17-year sentence, several members of your Lordships' House met James. He explained that he felt compelled to return to Burma for two reasons: first the denial of basic democratic rights to the elected government of Aung San Suu Kyi; and, secondly, the genocide inflicted on the Karen, the Karenni and the Shan ethnic minorities.
	Last week the British Vice-Consul in Rangoon, Karen Williams, reported that James had been beaten black and blue, his nose had been broken by prison guards, he had been kept in solitary confinement for a year and he had recently been told that he could see visitors only from behind a glass screen. James would not wish us to dwell unduly long on his suffering and privations, for he would say that the point of his protest was to draw the world's attention to the suffering of Burma's people.
	Two years ago, some of your Lordships were good enough to participate in a debate that I initiated after I visited the refugee camps on the Burma border. I took evidence on both sides of the border from our former World War II allies, the Karen. Since then, I have maintained regular contact, meeting two of their representatives last week. I have also recently met representatives of the Shan people and discussed the present plight of refugees. I want to register with the Minister my particular concern about reports that officials of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees may be preparing the ground for the eventual repatriation of refugees in Thailand back to Burma. That would be signing their death warrant.
	More than 30,000 Karen civilians have died as a result of Burmese military activity since 1992 alone. More than 300,000 Karen and similar numbers of Shan people are internally displaced. Many are killed on sight when discovered. About 120,000 Karen and 100,000 Shan have been forced to flee to Thailand to escape the atrocities of the Burmese army.
	The sustained carnage and brutality in Burma have left western governments in a quandary as to the most appropriate response. On trade, for example, the United States administration, to their credit, have banned any new investment and their companies have withdrawn. Meanwhile, despite the protestations of Ministers, British and French companies such as Premier Oil and Total continue to trade. There is no internationally agreed approach to sanctions. Neither is there a concerted international attempt to bring those responsible for such atrocities to justice.
	It has been suggested that we should wait on the creation of an international criminal court, but only a handful of countries have so far ratified the statute to set up such a court. It is impossible to say when it might begin to function. In any event, it will not have retrospective jurisdiction. It would be an appalling travesty if a well intentioned initiative became the tool used by the perpetrators of mass murder to evade prosecution. The ICC is not an effective solution.
	Her Majesty's Government would do better to lobby at the United Nations Security Council for the creation of an international criminal tribunal which could try the Burmese regime and their subordinates for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Perhaps more importantly, it would send a signal of our determination to withstand such massive violations of human rights.
	It is sometimes suggested that it is not worth trying because the Chinese might veto such an attempt. That is a feeble and defeatist circular argument. Significantly, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, Nancy Soderberg, has said in the past few days that the US Government condemn the Burmese and that they will continue to raise their concerns in the Security Council. We should use the same forum to press for genocide charges.
	The international legal definition of genocide is found in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The definition given in Article 2 of the convention refers to five sets of circumstances that constitute genocide. The first is the killing of members of the group; the second is causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; the third is deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; the fourth is imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; the fifth is forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Although only one of those five categories needs to apply, there is overwhelming evidence of at least the first three in Burma.
	Time does not permit the detailed laying of evidence before your Lordships' House tonight, but let me point to some relevant sources. In 1998, the Karen human rights group--an independent, non-political human rights organisation that gathers evidence inside Burma--published its report entitled Wholesale Destruction. It detailed mass forced relocation, the destruction of villages and village economies and horrific levels of forced labour. In 1998, the UN special rapporteur on Burma, Mr Rajsoomer Lallah QC, submitted his human rights report to the UN General Assembly. In paragraph 59 he said:
	"Violations include extra-judicial and arbitrary executions (not sparing women and children) rape, torture, inhuman treatment, forced labour and denial of freedom of movement. These violations have been so numerous and consistent over the past years as to suggest that they are not simply isolated acts of individual misbehaviour of middle and lower rank officers but are rather the result of policy at the highest level entailing political and legal responsibility".
	On 2nd July 1998, the International Labour Organisation published a damning indictment of the regime's extensive use of forced labour. I hope that we shall be able to hear later from the noble Lord, Lord Brett, who has great experience of that organisation and its findings.
	The Jubilee campaign recently reported the massacre of 64 internally displaced Shan people. On 23rd May, a column of 90 to 100 Burmese troops from infantry battalion 246 seized 64 Shan, including women and children. They were gathered as a group outside Kun-Hing town in Shan state and shot dead. The victims included a seven year-old girl, Naang Seng Hawng, and a four year-old boy, Zaai Awny. Not long afterwards, the Burmese soldiers continued to search the area and killed more Shan civilians.
	In February, Amnesty International interviewed Shan refugees from Laikha, Murngpan, Kunhing and Namsan townships in the central Shan state. All except one stated that they had been forcibly relocated by the Burmese military. They reported instances of the army killing their friends and relatives if they were found trying to forage for food or harvest crops outside relocation sites. Every refugee interviewed stated that they had been forced to build roads and military buildings and to carry equipment for the military. Some were as young as 10. Amnesty has described the human rights abuses against the Karen, the Karenni and the Shan as "systematic".
	In October 1999 the tribunal established by the Asian Human Rights Commission published its findings on the links between militarisation and food scarcity in Burma. It concluded that the military government,
	"is largely responsible for food scarcity",
	and,
	"may be considered guilty of a crime against humanity, punishable under international law... it falls,
	it said,
	"within the scope and obligation of international law to investigate and prosecute those responsible".
	Article 1 of the 1948 convention on genocide lays a duty on our Government and on all other others who ratified it to try to prevent genocide from taking place. We are a privileged nation. We have a seat at the Security Council. We claim high ethical standards in the conduct of our international affairs. We know from our own history and from past experience, from the genocide of the Armenian people to the Jewish Holocaust, from Cambodia to Bosnia, to Rwanda and to East Timor, that tyrants are emboldened when free nations appear indifferent or hide behind diplomatic niceties or interminable arguments about legal definitions and meanings.
	The suffering which one British national, James Mawdsley, is enduring at this time has thrown those issues into sharp relief. James is a young man of extraordinary faith, great courage and personal integrity. He is a man of deep conviction. His sacrifice will be worth while if it spurs the rest of us into seeking a more resolute and trenchant approach towards Burma's military regime.

Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, the House owes a great debt to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for reminding us so forcefully of a matter which is an imposition on our conscience. As I understand it, the noble Lord has set out to do two things in this debate: first, to inform noble Lords who are not aware of the facts of the appalling atrocities which are being committed in Burma against the Karen, the Karenni and the Shan peoples. I do not intend to add to that list of facts. Other noble Lords here tonight are better qualified to do so.
	I do not believe that what the noble Lord said will have come as a surprise to my noble friend the Minister. The atrocities have been condemned repeatedly by the international community. We shall hear later in the debate from my noble friend Lord Brett of the steps taken by the International Labour Organisation and of the fact that so far they have fallen on deaf ears. My noble friend will remember that on 5th June in the course of a Question on the Sudan I asked why the Government are prepared to engage in discussions with the Government of the Sudan when clearly they have given up on the Government of Burma. My noble friend replied that the Government of Sudan were at least prepared to discuss their human rights record, whereas the Government of Burma are beyond reproof and beyond shame. I hope that that is a fair paraphrase of what my noble friend said.
	The reason why I intervene in this debate is to address the noble Lord's second purpose which, as I understand it, is to examine how far we can make our concerns effective. I do not believe that my noble friend needs to be persuaded that what happens in Burma is our business. Many years ago the international community was able to dismiss human suffering in other countries with a reference to national sovereignty. That is no longer possible. It is accepted that the world cannot disavow its responsibilities so lightly and, as the noble Lord said, it is now an obligation in international law. Indeed, the United Kingdom Government, and specifically my noble friend the Minister, played a commendable role in establishing the International Criminal Court.
	I do not share the noble Lord's pessimism. The statute already has 20 signatures. It may well not be long before it has the necessary 60. The United Kingdom Government are consulting urgently on the domestic legislation which will enable this country to be among them. We may hope that within a very few years we shall be spared the necessity of discussing what we can do about such atrocities. However, for tragic numbers of innocent victims a very few years may well be too late. As the noble Lord said, the jurisdiction will not operate retrospectively. It is good to know that we may soon have a fire brigade but, if one's house is burning, a fire extinguisher now is more important than a fire brigade next year.
	An ad hoc tribunal established by a resolution of the Security Council retrospectively to the crime is only a second best. However, until we can call on the best, we should settle for the second best. If the United Kingdom were to initiate a discussion in the Security Council with that as the objective, and if they were successful, then those who commit such crimes will know that today they may shelter behind the sovereignty of their government but governments may change or they may fall and, when they do, those who rely on them for protection will have nowhere to run, as at least seven war criminals from Rwanda now know to their cost.
	By assuring the evil-doers of impending retribution, we may save lives before it is too late. And that may add to the developing culture of a global conscience and a global rule of law which may consign crimes of genocide to history.

Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I warmly congratulate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this timely debate for, tragically, as the summer has progressed, events in Burma have deteriorated once more.
	As we have heard this evening, the most recent outrage has been the treatment of the imprisoned human rights activist, James Mawdsley. Last week we heard that he had been severely beaten and his food and possessions taken away from him. I look forward to hearing what success the Minister had during her meeting with the Burmese ambassador in conveying our anger in the strongest possible terms at this violation of human rights and blatant flouting of the standards of the international community. What response has there been to her warning that the British Government will not tolerate the situation and to her demands that James Mawdsley be released immediately or transferred to Rangoon where consular staff can watch over his welfare?
	This is a country where Amnesty International last year released reports describing how the Burmese military had killed dozens of unarmed farmers from the Karen, Karenni and Shan ethnic groups and forced thousands into forced labour and forced relocations. This is the regime where over the past four years some 300,000 Shan and over 20,000 Karenni villagers have been forced from their villages into designated relocation sites where the military has kept them, in the words of one former resident,
	"like chickens in a basket".
	Those brutal policies have led to the exodus of hundreds of thousands of people across Burma's borders into neighbouring countries, an issue referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Amnesty International and the UN Special Rapporteur for Burma, who repeatedly has been denied access to the country since his appointment in 1996, have catalogued a list of truly appalling human rights violations.
	In Burma the forces of democracy are locked in a long war of attrition against the forces of despotism, of tyranny, of slaughter and of genocide. In battle after battle, in stand-off after stand-off, the ruling State Peace and Development Council has resorted to the use of brute force and repressive violence. Yet, in the 10 years since winning the elections, the National League for Democracy has refused to be cowed or to admit defeat, despite the fact that more than half its MPs have been persecuted. Of the 392 NLD MPs elected in 1990, over 100 are either in prison or detained. A further 100 have been forced to resign or have gone into exile, and two have died in prison.
	From thousands of miles away across the other side of the world it is all too easy to express shock, horror and outrage at the situation in Burma and to broadcast our insistence on dialogue instead of repression. This debate addresses the second point, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, addressed: how can we translate this into concrete and effective action? What tools do the Government and the international community have at their disposal to persuade the Burmese authorities to move away from military solutions and to engage in an all-inclusive political debate with political opposition? Few effective ones, it seems. In the past 10 years, we have had little success in attaining the goal of a process of dialogue. It is a stain on the face of the international community that 10 years since the Burmese people were denied democracy little there has changed for good.
	As we all know, in Burma words are not enough. The Government's policy is, according to the Minister of State, one of condemnation and pressure. It has clearly irked the Burmese regime. But what confidence does the Minister have that it will draw more than a merely venomous sting from the Burmese authorities? Does she agree that securing an imminent visit by the UN Special Rapporteur should be the litmus test for the success of the Government's policy? Will the Minister say what efforts the Government have made to engage China in finding a solution to the situation in Burma?
	The challenge for the international community now lies in matching our goals for Burma's future with the tools we have available. Our tools of persuasion are limited and we hear few calibrations of subtlety and balance. The tools of condemnation and isolation are blunt and heavy but they are justified if, and only if, they achieve a result. That result would be a peaceful and stable government in Burma which reflects, not rejects, the will of the Burmese people.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on securing the debate this evening. I pay my own tribute to him for the courageous and steadfast commitment that he has shown to the cause of freedom in Burma over many years.
	I had intended to speak tonight from personal experience as I had arranged to visit Rangoon last month as a guest of John James, our ambassador. But the Burmese government paid me the enormous compliment of refusing me a visa.
	But you do not have to visit there to learn what sort of regime exists in Burma. You can start by looking at who its friends are. It is China, for example, which supplies most of the arms and weaponry used for internal repression. It is clearly not bothered by the reports of child slave workers in Burma or by the ILO's accusation that the exploitation of forced labour amounts to an international crime, and possibly a crime against humanity; or by the overwhelming evidence that the regime is into heroin production and trafficking up to its neck.
	The other great supporter of the Burmese junta is Slobodan Milosevic, himself an indicted war criminal. He entertained Win Aung, Burma's foreign minister, in Belgrade in July and said that between them, they had agreed that sanctions imposed on sovereign states were,
	"a criminal form of behaviour [and] a massive violation of human rights".
	They should know about both those things.
	By contrast, our record and that of the United States is good. Our embassy in Rangoon bravely maintains contact with the NLD and with Aung San Suu Kiu, despite massive intimidation from the Burmese military. The FCO has done its best to persuade British companies to pull out. It is deplorable, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, that Premier Oil still refuses to abandon its gas pipeline, even though it was forced to admit at its AGM in May that human rights and environmental abuses are linked to that project. Surely it should be concerned about the hundreds of political prisoners, the thousands of arbitrary arrests and torture cases and the tens of thousands of ethnic Karen and other tribespeople abused, killed or driven from their land.
	The discouragement of tourism is also important. The FCO travel advice website contains links to briefing papers on the subject, including the late Derek Fatchett's letter to the chairman of the Association of British Travel Agents, where he draws attention to the views of pro-democracy leaders that it is inappropriate for tourists to visit Burma.
	But the cynicism of some or our tour companies is breathtaking. Let us take the Orient Express as an example. It not only promotes luxury holidays in Burma but on its website it boasts, in response to the question:
	"What about Myanmar's human rights record?"
	that,
	"it makes no apology for the actions of any of the countries our guests visit".
	That is not good enough.
	Finally, as parliamentarians, we should use every opportunity to express our support for the democratically elected leadership and for the scores of MPs who have been jailed in Burma, some of whom have died in detention. There is a government in exile, with a Prime Minister, Dr Sein Win, waiting to take over. He has written to many of us--and I expect that many of your Lordships have had his letter--seeking support for a declaration of Members of Parliament throughout the world in solidarity with the democratically elected members of the parliament of Burma. He says in his letter:
	"This will not only make a difference in how these elected MPs and their fellow citizens are treated but will take a significant step towards the goal of bringing our national nightmare to a close".
	I urge your Lordships to support that declaration.

The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for asking this Question on such a crucially important subject. I should like to begin by paying tribute to those who, sometimes at great personal cost, are working to stop the abuses in Burma and bring about a democratic government, especially of course, as the noble Lord mentioned, James Mawdsley, and we think also of Aung San Suu Kiu, who is such an inspiration to the world.
	But this evening we are considering an issue even more important than democracy--the charge that there be such a systematic violation of human rights against particular peoples in Burma that it amounts to genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
	The United States Department of State's report on Burma for 1999 is a very sober document but, in its sober style, it reports:
	"In rural areas the military Government also continued its widespread and frequent practice of forcibly relocating ethnic minority villages. This practice was particularly widespread and egregious in the Shan, Kayah, and Karen States and in areas of Mon State and Pegu Division as part of the armed forces campaign against insurgents. In these areas, thousands of villagers were displaced and herded into smaller settlements in strategic areas ... These forced relocations often have been accompanied by intensified demands for forced labor to build infrastructure for both villagers and army units to guard them in the areas to which they were relocated, and often have generated large outflows of refugees to neighboring countries or to parts of the country not controlled by the Government".
	We have already heard some of the staggering figures which lie behind that report, so I shall not repeat them. However, I should like to quote some words of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Burma. He wrote:
	"These violations have been so numerous and consistent over the past years as to suggest that they are not simply isolated or the acts of individual misbehaviour by middle--and lower--rank officer but are the result of policy at the highest level entailing political and legal responsibility".
	The Myanmar government, in the literature that they have sent out to many of us, claim that they have concluded agreements with most of the minority groups and that they are left fighting recalcitrant terrorists. Even if that were true, which I do not accept, it cannot justify the scorched earth campaigns, the forcible removal or destruction of whole civilian populations, with all the associated torture and ill-treatment, for villagers are being forced into relocation camps and summarily executed if they do not obey.
	I know that Her Majesty's Government are well aware of what is happening and desire to do what they can. I support the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in asking Her Majesty's Government to use their place on the Security Council to press for the setting up of an international criminal tribunal. Such tribunals have been set up in former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and are bringing perpetrators of war crimes to justice. The scale of the violations in Burma warrants similar treatment.
	I am afraid that it is no good looking to the setting up of the international criminal court to deal with that issue, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, indicated. That court is necessary and it is right that the Government should support its establishment. But it will be some years before it is operational. We need something now to show the Burmese government that the world takes what they are doing as seriously as it takes what has happened elsewhere. I believe that the Karen, Karenni and Shan people need international support now before thousands more are relocated and killed.
	The setting up of an international criminal tribunal would send a clear signal and I very much hope that Her Majesty's Government will be able to support it.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for providing the House with the opportunity to debate this every important issue. I thank him also for his extremely comprehensive overview in the few short moments that he had to initiate the debate.
	My hope is that in considering what they can do, the Government will act as quickly as they can to press for a fresh international initiative which will bring before an international criminal tribunal those responsible for crimes which they have committed, and are continuing to commit, against humanity.
	I am confident that my noble friend the Minister will agree that there is sufficient evidence to warrant that an international criminal tribunal should be established. Tragically, evidence exists in abundance that the vicious military machine that controls the people of Burma is responsible for persecuting ethnic minorities.
	Mention has been made that the Karen, Karenni and Shan peoples are facing the threat of genocide. Figures have been quoted, but those I have been able to get hold of indicate that more than 600,000 people from these minorities are displaced within Burma. Many of the displaced are in hiding from the Burmese army, some in the jungle. They are persecuted people with little food or medicines. If found they are likely to be shot on sight. The list of atrocities perpetrated by the military is long and harrowing.
	The evidence is there for the world to see, but what is not so clear is what the international community is doing to bring to an end the suffering and abuse being inflicted on the people of Burma.
	Many members of your Lordships' House can, with authority, refer to the legal definitions of genocide and the denial of human rights. As a lay person, without the legal ability to comment on the interpretation of genocide, all I can sincerely hope is that our Government will pursue, wherever possible, the case against the brutal and corrupt regime that exists in Burma today. It is an illegal regime that has denied the Burmese people the democracy that they overwhelmingly voted for, as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, in the elections in 1990 when the National League for Democracy won 82 per cent of the seats.
	This evening we also remember, with sorrow and through our prayers, the plight of James Mawdsley who is held in solitary confinement in prison in Burma. His crime was simply to distribute pro-democracy literature. The case of the inhuman sentence passed on James Mawdsley was discussed on the Sunday programme yesterday morning on Radio 4. I want to take the opportunity this evening to express my hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, will be successful in his attempt to represent Mr Mawdsley if he is allowed to appeal against the inhuman 17-year sentence imposed upon him.
	Speaking on the programme, the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, mentioned a number of actions that we could support in expressing opposition to the regime. I agree wholeheartedly with his comments about not trading with Burma and alerting the attention of tourists to the use of slave labour. The noble Lord asked us to,
	"ever remember that people like James Mawdsley are a sign of liberty, Burma has reached a dark moment in its history and that the people of Burma deserve our support".
	I am sure that all Members of the House will echo what he said.
	The noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned the many reports of atrocities and the list of atrocities contained in the report entitled Wholesale Destruction from the Karen Human Rights Group in 1998. Comment has already been made about the burning of villages, the destruction of the economies of those villages and the relocation of the people. There are many reports and much evidence. Those reports confirm the need for co-ordinated international action to assist the Burmese people. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will press for such action at the United Nations Security Council and do all they can to seek a common European Union policy of sanctions. The time for action has long passed. We should not wait any longer.

Lord Brett: My Lords, I rise to echo the words of my noble colleagues and to express appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for raising this matter. I also echo the many comments of noble Lords in seeking to condemn the regime in Rangoon. I shall restrict my contribution to three points: a point of fact, a point of appreciation and a point of concern.
	The point of fact is that I am closely allied, as has been said, with the International Labour Organisation, which for three years has been conducting a commission of inquiry, seeking to get the government in Rangoon to fulfil their obligation as a member of the ILO. The report of the commission of inquiry was not a report by people taking hearsay evidence; it was a report by three eminent world jurists who spent a great deal of time, and half a million dollars, to arrive at a decision, a 254-page horror story. The result has been that at a conference in June the International Labour Organisation, which reflects the 174 member states of the United Nations of which it is an agency, condemned, with a handful of votes against--merely ASEAN countries--and a number of abstentions including Japan and India, the government in Rangoon, saying that they should fulfil their obligations under their position within the ILO and do so by November. To date nothing has happened. That is the point of fact.
	My point of appreciation relates to the UK Government and to their civil servants, who have been forthright in condemning the regime in Rangoon. One civil servant has as a trophy a rather battered name sign that says "United Kingdom". He battered it almost to smithereens in seeking to get the chair of the June conference to recognise him so that he could make a strong statement. As chair of the workers' group of the ILO, I am appreciative of the support of the UK Government and the foreign service.
	I turn to my point of concern. The UN rapporteur, of whom mention has been made, the ILO, a UN agency that condemns Rangoon, the General Assembly and UNHCR have all made statements condemning this pariah state. In September Aung San Suu Kiu was effectively blockaded in a convoy by the military. She was denied the right to leave Rangoon.
	At the same time, what was happening in New York city at the UN? The very same United Nations, the very same 174 nations, took it upon themselves to elect Ambassador Tan, a gentleman I have met on several occasions--in my view, several occasions too many--who is Burma's permanent representative at the UN in Geneva, to be chairperson of the UN General Assembly's first Committee on Disarmament and International Security. I consider that to be a slap in the face. The United Nations, in its own fora, condemns the regime. Are our diplomats and our leaders so cynical that it is business as usual?
	I ask the Minister--I gave notice of this question--why that has happened, and why those same nations that condemn Burma in the ILO and other places did not voice a protest at that election of an ambassador of a pariah state to an important position in the United Nations. Your Lordships can rest assured that that may not have made any headlines in this country but I can promise you that it made headlines in Rangoon. I am sure that it was presented as an indication that the world was accepting the military regime.
	Two years ago I had the dubious privilege of being declared an enemy of the state by what was then the SLORC. I wear that as a medal of honour, although I do not intend taking any holidays in Rangoon in the foreseeable future. Unlike my noble friend Lord Faulkner, I would not invite them to reject me as a visitor. It is important that this debate is aired and that we ask of our colleagues why we cannot have joined-up international thinking and joined-up international action which we call for in our own country.

Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I intervene briefly in this short but, nevertheless, important and timely debate to support what the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and others have said about the continued abuse of human rights in Burma, not only in relation to James Mawdsley, but also in relation to the plight of the Karen, the Shan and other tribes in Burma as they face the darkest hour in their history.
	The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has spoken from fairly recent personal experience, as has the noble Lord, Lord Brett, of the atrocities perpetrated by the military regime. My personal experience is less recent, but as a veteran of the Second World War, who fought in Burma, I am in a special position to appreciate the support which the Karens loyally gave to us in our struggle at that time. Nobody knows that better than my noble friend Lord Slim, who is with us this evening. We should not forget or overlook that they came to our aid at our time of need. Surely we have a duty and a moral obligation to support them as positively as we can at a time when they are facing virtual extinction.
	Apart from the atrocities about which we have heard tonight, I understand that there has been a sharp increase in civilian landmine casualties as the Burmese military implement a strategy of mining rice fields and village paths used by those fleeing for safety to Thailand to avoid forced labour, rape and other terrible atrocities. We may not be in a position to help those unfortunate people directly, but the very least Her Majesty's Government can do is to lobby the United Nations Council for an international criminal tribunal on Burma to bring to account those responsible for genocide and crimes against humanity.
	If the British Government really do have an ethical foreign policy, then surely stopping genocide should be a top priority. Failure to raise that crucial issue at the United Nations may suggest that the Government are prepared to take up the cudgels on behalf of a British citizen in prison, but overlook the plight of those who fought with such loyalty and bravery with us 50 years ago. I do not believe that that is the case. I believe that the British Government will take positive action.

Lord Brennan: My Lords, we are many who denounce genocide and the breach of human rights in Burma; they are few who are prepared to make the kind of sacrifice that James Mawdsley made. For those people who suffered that genocide and those breaches, entering Burma legally, passing out leaflets that said no more to the people around him than that they should stand up for democracy, he was arrested, quickly tried, convicted and sentenced to 17 years imprisonment. I have applied to the legal authorities in Burma for permission to enter that country, to be admitted to their profession, so that I can represent him should he be given a final appeal at the High Court in Mandalay. I hope that permission will be given.
	In the mean time, James Mawdsley is in solitary confinement; he sees only his guards; he lives with electric lights on for 24 hours a day; he can only see his visitors inside a glass cage and is thereby subject to inhuman treatment. Yet his will survives. That, for me--I hope for this House--is an example in two ways. It is an example for the people of Burma, for whom he feels so much, that there are those who will stand by them. It is an example to this House and this Government that we can do something, and I invite this Government to do something.
	First, I commend the actions of our consular officials, our courageous Ambassador in Rangoon, and in particular the tremendous work done by my noble friend Lady Scotland in recent months in dealing with that case and Burma in particular. Let their efforts continue. Secondly, the Government should, as they have done, stand by the elected representatives of the people--Aung San Suu Kyi and her supporters--and stand by them day by day. Thirdly, for the sake of the people of Burma they should stop trading with that country. People in this House, in this nation, felt in years past that South Africa indulged in an outrageous system called apartheid. Is Burma any different?
	Fourthly, we should vigorously discourage people from travelling in that country for holidays. Fifthly, thorny though it is diplomatically, the adjacent nations of India, China and Thailand should be pursued with vigour to partake in the programme that I have just outlined for our Government. Finally, James Mawdsley is a persecuted Englishman in a foreign gaol; let us not forget him. But he is there to stand up for a persecuted nation. Let us not forget them. I ask the Government to take the measures that I suggest.

Viscount Slim: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Alton and for the kind words of my noble friend Lord Weatherill. I should like to address Her Majesty's Government on this particular sordid, cruel and terrible subject of Myanmar--Burma--today.
	I believe we can do more on the periphery of Burma, and in that I include India, but also around the Thai border. I do not feel that the Government are giving sufficient support to many of the NGOs working there. I say immediately that one NGO with which I am connected, Prospect Burma, has had very little support from the Foreign Office, apart from words. The only money that we have been given has come from the American Government. We are not given money by our own Government.
	Burma has now had five or six years with no schools and no universities, and at least one if not two generations of Burmese will not be able to speak English--by that I mean the medical, technical, engineering and computer English. Prospect Burma set out to make a tiny contribution towards that. However, such moneys as we give seem to go via Europe as a nation. I do not know what the European Union--Brussels and Strasbourg--do with it. I believe they stick it in one of their banks and take the interest. I do not see much movement from the European Union into the affairs and the tragedy of Burma today.
	The Minister is familiar with the British and Commonwealth Ex-Service League of Veterans. There are 54 Commonwealth nations involved. We have sparse money but do our best to help any Burmese veterans--there are many--who need help. We can only do that on the perimeter. Any help or money injected places a man in danger from the junta and we can only help a veteran who arrives on the frontier, though I will not go into how.
	My point is that it is not only the Karens; there were at least 10,000 signed up to Kachin levies, for instance. They did a marvellous job. Many tribes in Burma gave of their time, their courage and their lives for Great Britain. I merely ask the Minister to support in a better and stronger way the many NGOs that work on the periphery. If it is money they need, then give them money. But the NGOs need the support of our Government, whether they are Christian or the organisations that I mentioned. One way of doing that would be to gather the heads and secretaries together to sit down with the Foreign Ministry and do some tough talking. Let us get some help and advice. The Government have a duty to do that.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, perhaps I may take a moment wholeheartedly to support what has been said by many wise speakers in the debate. I, too, recognise the disgusting regime which prevails in Burma and the appalling atrocities which have been committed against the Karen people who helped us so much in the war. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that we are placed in a quandary. We can try his line of going to the international criminal tribunal but I fear that that will not get far.
	Perhaps I may ask the Minister one question. It is right that the Government would not want to get involved with the horrific people in the military government and should support the elected democratic government. However, the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, raised the central question of other involvement which, far from condemning and destroying, we should be promoting in the non-governmental area.
	Many people have condemned trade and investment with Burma. But are we sure that we want to close down all the huge social programmes connected with the Yetagun project, the gigantic gas project? The Save the Children Fund of the US is working with the much criticised Premium Oil in health education, academic education, vocational training, income generation projects, sports and arts projects, environmental preservation projects and a variety of others. I carry no brief for that or any oil company but ask whether we have examined the matter carefully. In our zeal, we should ensure that we do not destroy what is good but instead open the future for the people of Burma and close down the horrific rulers with which they have been saddled in recent years.
	That is the only point I have time to raise but I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has done a great service in promoting the debate.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I agree that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has done the House a great service in allowing us to debate the matter. Unlike almost every other country in the world, Burma has been deaf to appeals to conform to internationally accepted human rights standards. The state continues to engage in warfare against its own citizens, particularly the minorities of the Karen, the Karenni and the Shan. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred to the report of Amnesty International that 300,000 civilians of the Shan have been displaced from their homes, as have many tens of thousands of the other minorities; that thousands are seized by the army and are forced to work without pay; and that hundreds are being killed as they return to their farms. The same story applies to the other minorities.
	Undoubtedly, crimes against humanity have been committed by the state. The ILO explicitly recognises that and its report catalogues the most appalling litany of human rights abuses. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that if possible that should be dealt with by an international tribunal. If not, the Security Council should be persuaded to consider other means of bringing the regime to book. We already have the convention against torture, under which it would be possible to indict members of the regime if they were unwise enough to set foot in this country.
	Next week, the UN Secretary-General's special envoy, Mr Ishmael Rezali, is to visit Burma in pursuance of the recommendations made by the General Assembly in its resolution of last February. It strongly urged the government of Burma to co-operate with the special rapporteur, who has still not been able to visit the country. Will the Government ask the Secretary-General to report on this mission and to engage in discussions with members of the Security Council on a range of possible sanctions against Burma to see what consensus there may be. Will they ask the Secretary-General to commission the preparation of a draft indictment which could be used before an ad hoc tribunal if it were possible to set one up? We could then at least frame the charges and see how they could work.
	In November, the ILO governing body meets to consider what to do about the failure of the state to implement any of the recommendations in its 1998 report or to co-operate with its mission of May 2000 when an attempt was made to agree a programme for restoring Burma to compliance with its obligations under the convention. As the noble Lord, Lord Brett, pointed out, in June it voted to take a series of measures if Burma had not effectively complied with the recommendations by the end of November. Presumably, that has the full support of the Government. It would be useful to have that on the record. We hope that the November deadline will not be allowed to slip and that those measures will be taken in the event of Burma's failure to honour its obligations by that time.
	The contempt of the SPDC for international opinion has been underlined twice in recent days: first, by the torture of James Mawdsley, now compounded by the effrontery of the denial by the Burmese Ambassador in London; and, secondly, the latest example of the relentless persecution of Aung San Suu Kyi. I refer to her detention when she was at the railway station with eight leading members of her party, intending to travel peacefully to Mandalay. She is now held incommunicado at her residence and the NLD headquarters is also sealed off by security forces. I hope that when the Minister summoned the Burmese Ambassador to talk about the case of James Mawdsley, she also protested about the treatment of Aung San Suu Kyi.
	The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked what efforts we had made to engage China. Next week, the Government are to host the UK/China dialogue. The SPDC would pay attention to the Chinese, so could we ask them to use their influence to persuade the regime to comply with international law and with the resolutions of the General Assembly and the ILO?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for giving us the opportunity to debate Burma in this House today. Perhaps I may thank all noble Lords who have faithfully participated tonight, as they have on a number of occasions, and for their warm words of support for the work undertaken by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
	We previously debated the issue on 15th May and it is right that we should focus once again on the tragedy that is unfolding there. As we have heard so graphically during the debate from a number of noble Lords, the regime's human rights record is dreadful and getting worse. This is a country which used to be the rice bowl of Asia but where now some struggle to feed themselves. It is a country bled white by misdirection of resources into arms. The World Health Organisation recently ranked Burma's healthcare as the second lowest in the world, beating only Sierra Leone.
	The poverty, fighting and gross human rights violations has led many to flee Burma. The information we receive on refugees, particularly to Thailand but also to India and Bangladesh, is profoundly disturbing. Some of the eye-witness accounts we see can only be described as horrific. It is a disgrace that the Burmese Government continue to put out statements claiming that no atrocities are committed against the ethnic minorities. Many noble Lords commented on that. The Burmese Government cannot be allowed to get away with such lies. The evidence to the contrary is compelling.
	The UNHCR statistics for the period May 1999 to July 2000 show that on average more than 1,000 Burmese refugees entered Thailand each month. By the end of August, the Burmese Border Consortium, a non-governmental organisation providing relief to Burmese refugees and displaced people, was helping more than 126,000 refugees; a rise of more than 3,500 on the previous month and a new and terrible record.
	I am therefore pleased to reassure the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, and the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that the UK helps fund the consortium. In response to these increasing demands, I am pleased to announce that the Department for International Development is increasing this year's support for it from £270,000 to £350,000; an increase of nearly 30 per cent. I hope that the noble Viscount will be pleased to know that, as regards the Prospect Burma, officials from the FCO had a meeting only last week to discuss the way forward. So things are happening.
	However, the suffering of those forced to flee their homes and live in refugee camps is unimaginable. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary was deeply moved by their resilience in the face of such desperate conditions when he visited one of the camps in Thailand in April. As was highlighted by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, my noble friend Lord Clarke and other noble Lords, the plight of hundreds of thousands of internally displaced people within Burma is also deeply worrying.
	Then there were the arbitrary arrests, torture, rape, summary executions, forced labour, forced relocation and the absence of basic freedoms of speech, movement and political rights in Burma. Visitors are not immune. Our thoughts are with James Mawdsley and his family, as he sits out the second year of a sentence imposed for the heinous crime--which the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, touched on--of handing out pro-democracy leaflets. I am sure that all noble Lords share the outrage expressed by the Foreign Secretary last week in response to the news that James had been severely beaten by prison guards.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, I summoned the Burmese ambassador on 27th September and made it abundantly clear that they cannot treat a British national in that way. It is a gross abuse of human rights and we will not tolerate it. I asked that James be released immediately or transferred to Rangoon, where consulate staff could watch over his welfare and ensure that such barbarism is not repeated. I regret to tell your Lordships that I was met by barefaced denial. I was told that there had been no assault--that James Mawdsley had, while handcuffed caused the injuries himself. We are continuing to press for a proper response. Noble Lords will not be surprised that I was not willing to accept that tissue of lies. Today, our ambassador reiterated our concern to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Rangoon.
	Every international body asked to examine the situation on the ground in Burma returns with a catalogue of abuse. Some observers--including the noble Lords, Lord Alton, Lord Weatherill and Lord Brennan--consider that such abuse amounts to genocide against Burma's ethnic minorities. The Government have no wish to shield the Burmese junta from the consequences of its actions.
	In recent months we have led international condemnation of the military regime and played a key role in keeping the spotlight of world opinion on its dreadful record--but we must be careful in our choice of words. For reasons that have been explained to several of your Lordships in correspondence, the Government do not consider "genocide" an appropriate term to describe the regime's behaviour. Genocide has a specific definition under international law. It is difficult to prove and is restrictive in terms of definition. Amnesty International does not use the term "genocide" when describing what is happening in Burma. Neither does Judge Lailah, the UN special rapporteur on human rights in Burma, nor the Burma Border Consortium--which daily witnesses the suffering of thousands of freshly displaced refugees.
	Let us not allow terminology to cloud the central issue. However one describes it, the regime is committing systematic atrocities on a daily basis. What can we do to stop it? At present, there is no international criminal tribunal with jurisdiction over Burma. To establish one would require a Security Council resolution--and there is no prospect of the necessary consensus for that in the foreseeable future. However, I assure the House, and particularly the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Moynihan, that we and the United States of America will continue to make our concerns known in Security Council discussions, despite the lack of consensus.
	To help end impunity for the sort of atrocities we are seeing in Burma, the UK strongly supports the establishment of a permanent international criminal court. I respectfully agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell that such a court may add considerably to our armoury against such tyranny. We have published draft legislation to enable the UK to ratify the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court and we are consulting widely on the Bill with a view to ensuring that it is in the best possible shape for introduction as soon as parliamentary time allows.
	The existence of such a court will put all future war criminals on notice that they may be held to account personally for their actions. Meantime, we can turn up the international heat on the regime, as we have done in recent weeks, to make it realise that the international community will not stand idly by while that regime brings a potentially prosperous nation to its knees. International reaction to the regime's disgraceful handling of Aung San Sun Kyi and her National League for Democracy colleagues last month will have left the regime in no doubt of the strength of world opinion. I assure your Lordships that I also raised that issue with the ambassador, with a good deal of force.
	The Foreign Secretary was one of the first to deplore publicly the way that the regime stopped Aung San Suu Kyi from travelling by car. My honourable friend John Battle, Minister of State, summoned the Burmese ambassador to complain about the restrictions placed on Aung San Suu Kyi and the lack of access to international observers. When Aung San Suu Kyi tried to leave Rangoon again, she was stopped and forced home. I repeated our demand to release her and her colleagues from effective house arrest. So far, the regime has not heeded our calls.
	But the regime backed down on the first stand-off. International pressure works--and that is the essence of the Government's policy towards Burma. Already this year we have led the way in strengthening the EU common position on Burma, so that it now includes a published visa ban list of regime members, an assets freeze for those on the list and a ban on the supply of weapons of internal repression. Those measures are in addition to the ban on military exports, defence links, developmental aid and high-level bilateral visits that have been in place under the common position since 1996. In March, we spearheaded condemnation of Burma at the governing body of the International Labour Organisation. In June, ILO delegates voted to take action to force Burma to comply with ILO regulations on forced labour. I thank my noble friend Lord Brett for his contribution in that regard.
	Burma has until November to implement the ILO's recommendations on forced labour and we hope that it will do so. If it does not, the ILO will invoke punitive measures against a member state for the first time in its 80-year history. At the UN, Burma has consistently flouted the humanitarian obligations that it has signed up to under the UN charter. With breathtaking hypocrisy, the regime continues to claim that it upholds UN principles.
	I assure my noble friend Lord Brett that the chairmanship of the UN General Assembly Committee rotates annually among the five UN regional groups. This year, the first committee fell to the Asian group. That group unanimously chose to nominate the Burmese representative to chair it. As chairman, he will not be representing Burma's national policy and his appointment does not enhance Burma's influence over the first committee issues.
	As I said, the regime continues to claim that it upholds UN principles but the truth is quite the reverse. That is why, uniquely in the UN system, Burma's record is regularly condemned in consensus resolutions. In April, we again co-sponsored a strongly worded United Nations Commission on Human Rights resolution, and we shall do the same at the UN General Assembly next month. We will also again call for the UN special rapporteur to be allowed access to Burma, as well as condemn all the human rights violations.
	Those are not empty exercises. Each resolution carefully and systematically catalogues the latest chapter of abuse and repression. Together, they make up a melancholy catalogue of misrule. They act as a reminder to world opinion of why none of us can afford to forget what is happening in Burma. It is our joint responsibility--governments, non-governmental organisations, international agencies and observers--to keep Burma's performance under constant scrutiny. We are grateful for the close co-operation we receive from all those groups fighting for justice in Burma.
	Burma today is in a worse condition than ever before. Its people are abused, its economy is on the ropes and its international standing is at an all-time low. Time is running out for the regime. World opinion will not give up on Burma. Nor is the Burmese people's patience inexhaustible. For the generals to continue down the present blind alley is as risky as it is irresponsible. Instability will only increase. We can only all hope that the generals will finally start listening.

Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill

House again in Committee.
	Clause 7 [Functions of inspectorate]:

Lord Dholakia: moved amendment No. 43:
	Page 4, line 22, leave out subsection (4).

Lord Dholakia: This amendment deals with the powers of the Secretary of State in relation to the inspectorate. The clause provides that,
	"The Secretary of State may give directions as to--
	(a) the information to be given in the report and the form in which it is to be given,
	(b) the time by which the report is to be given".
	It appears that fairly draconian powers are being assumed by the Secretary of State. The clause establishes the role and functions of the revised national probation inspectorate and the clause gives the Secretary of State power to determine what information is given in the report, the form in which it is given and the time for publication. That is a severe restraint on the independent role of the service. There is no similar restraint on the family court welfare service which is also established in this Bill. Why is there a sudden request for more powers for the inspectorate?
	We understand that the prisons inspectorate liaises on the timing of reports and that Ministers have the power of veto if security is affected, but it has never been used. If it were to be exercised, Ministers must give reasons to Parliament. If the Secretary of State can veto information the process is liable to political interference. For example, will a report which is critical about the failure of the Secretary of State adequately to resource aspects of the service's work be omitted because it is harmful to the case of the government of the day? We seek an explanation from Ministers on the exact circumstances in which the clause will be used and argue that the powers of the Secretary of State should be similar across governments and work on the principle of the independence of the examining body. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The effect of this amendment would be to remove the ability of the Secretary of State to request the report of an inspection of a local board be given within a particular timescale and for the report to contain specific information and to be in a particular format. Parliament already has the means to call Ministers to account for the exercise of their responsibilities under the Bill.
	I must reject this particular amendment. Earlier we were criticised for not being more precise about the way in which the inspectorate might work; the issues it might cover and those which it might want to draw to the attention of the Secretary of State. The function of the inspectorate is to provide timely reports on a regular basis on the performance of each and every local board. I argue that it is reasonable to seek such information on a consistent basis in a prescribed format within a given timescale.
	The clause continues the current arrangements for the inspection of the service. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, would agree that they appear to have worked well in the past. If accepted, this amendment would allow reports to be prepared on what can best be described as an ad hoc rather than a regular cyclical basis and in a similar style and format. It would make it difficult for the Secretary of State to assess the performance of the service nationally and identify any problem areas that needed to be addressed. We believe it is entirely reasonable that the Secretary of State should be able to specify the particular aspects of the service that he wants the inspectorate to look at and how and when it should report back to him.
	We believe that the production of timely reports on a regular basis to a format which ensures that all boards match particular standards and levels of performance is very important. This amendment would undermine that important principle. I trust that with that explanation the noble Lord is able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Dholakia: I have no difficulty with the explanation offered by the Minister. I have no problem about the form in which the information is to be given or the timescale within which the report must be provided. My difficulty lies with the information to be given in the report which the Secretary of State is to determine. What is the use of having an independent inspectorate when the Home Secretary can determine what information he requires? If the inspectorate is to be independent it must be allowed fully to explain precisely what it is looking at and produce a report to which the Home Secretary must respond. I hope that the Minister will give thought to what I have said and perhaps look at it. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Seccombe: moved Amendment No. 44:
	Page 4, line 27, at end insert ("within two months of its receipt").

Baroness Seccombe: We appreciate that under Clause 7 as drafted there is a requirement for the Secretary of State to lay the report of the inspector before each House of Parliament, but it does not state when. We believe that a timescale should be included on the face of the Bill. Without such a safeguard it would be easy for the report to lie in a drawer and not see the light of day for many months due to more urgent business. This amendment is a confidence-building measure for the Probation Service. We urge the Minister to accept what we regard as a modest and helpful amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The intention behind the amendment is to be helpful. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising the matter in this way. As has been acknowledged, Clause 7 requires that each inspection report should be submitted to the Secretary of State who in turn must lay a copy before each House of Parliament. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to do that within a given period. In relation to the previous amendment I argued that it would be right that inspections and reports upon them should be carried out on a fairly cyclical basis. We seek a balance. We need regular reporting with some flexibility in the production of those reports and the way in which they are drawn to the attention of Parliament.
	The Government have no intention to delay the presentation to Parliament of reports by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Probation. I believe that Parliament would properly call us to account if we attempted to do so or interfered in any way with that process. We have always been, and continue to be, committed to open scrutiny of our public services. We believe that the inspectorate has an honourable tradition and valuable independence. The amendment unnecessarily seeks to go further than the requirement on other inspectorates. That is an important comparison to be made.
	We believe that the amendment places us in an unnecessary straitjacket. If we adopted the amendment no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, would accuse us of taking draconian action. We believe that we have the balance about right. I trust that with that explanation the noble Baroness is able to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Seccombe: I am extremely disappointed by the Minister's response. The amendment seeks to add only two or three words to the Bill. One would have thought that the amendment would be acceptable. There is flexibility in that the amendment refers to the receipt of the report within two months. We all want transparency. Parliament would not even know that the report existed. I believe that because the amendment is so small yet important the opinion of the Committee should be tested.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 44) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 28; Not-Contents, 55.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	Clause 7 agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
	Clause 8 [Support services]:
	[Amendments Nos. 46 to 48 not moved.]
	On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Dholakia: This clause deals with support services. It gives power to the Secretary of State to privatise probation support services such as administration, secretaries or information technology. Over recent years, administration has become an integral part of the probation team. Roles have increasingly become blurred. For that reason it is valuable to have one employer and one set of negotiations for both sides. There is a danger that privatisation of parts of the Probation Service could lead to fragmentation and communication problems.
	The privatisation of prisons has always been controversial and the private sector has succeeded in keeping down costs only by offering lower wages, employing fewer staff and imposing poorer pensions. We believe that privatisation of one aspect of the probation estate would be a source of conflict and disharmony.
	I suggest to the Minister that a better way of seeking to ensure better "value for money" would be through modern managerial techniques: investing in staff; effective information technology; and adequate and regular training for all staff. I hope that the Minister will agree that this would be a better way of dealing with the issue, rather than simply to consider privatisation.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: This measure in Clause 8 has been included to make it possible for the Secretary of State to make arrangements for support services for local boards to be undertaken centrally by the staff, or to be contracted out. He would be able to do this only if by so doing, better efficiency or better value for money could be achieved.
	It could be of particular use where economies of scale could be achieved by grouping boards either regionally or nationally and letting a contract for the provision of a service. The nature of the services which might be covered is not tightly defined in the clause. The services are defined only as those services which are required by local boards in the exercise of their functions. They could range from cleaning services through to payroll provision or staff training.
	This clause is not designed to cover the contracting out of core activities involved in the supervision of offenders. I should like to make that point clearly understood. Local boards may contract out the delivery of such services under the provisions in Clause 5(2), but in that case the board concerned, rightly, would retain responsibility for ensuring that the arrangements it put into place were appropriate and that the contract which had been let had been fulfilled by the contractor.
	This clause does not concern the wholesale privatisation of the Probation Service or of the support services that form a part of it. It concerns making practical, sensible, good value for money and efficient services work in the best interests of the service.

Clause 8 agreed to.
	Clause 9 [Approved bail hostels, etc.]:

Baroness Turner of Camden: I must tell the Committee that if Amendment No. 49 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 50.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No.49:
	Page 5, leave out lines 2 to 5 and insert ("premises in which accommodation is provided--
	(a) for persons granted bail in criminal proceedings (within the meaning of the Bail Act 1976), or
	(b) for, or in connection with, the supervision or rehabilitation of persons convicted of offences.
	( ) References in any enactment to an approved bail hostel or approved probation hostel are to be read as references to premises approved under this section.").

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The amendment will remove distinctions between categories of hostels and will enable all approved hostels to accommodate, where appropriate, offenders who are subject to drug treatment and testing orders or licence conditions, or those who, while not subject to statutory supervision, require an enhanced level of supervision in residential accommodation to assist their rehabilitation.
	The proposed changes in the clause will provide greater flexibility in accommodating those who would benefit from being housed in approved accommodation. This could be particularly beneficial for those serving drug treatment and testing orders, who will be undergoing treatment as directed by the courts. The supportive regime in approved hostels increases the likelihood of such unstable offenders completing the treatment element of their orders, thereby increasing the effectiveness of sentencing and improving public protection.
	Hostels have an excellent record in dealing with difficult and dangerous offenders. They enable many of those who would otherwise have problems completing their periods of licence or community sentence to do so. The structured regime and framework of staff support provide the optimum opportunity for offenders to reconsider their criminal behaviour and begin the important rehabilitation process. For offenders, approved hostels represent a stepping stone back into society; for the wider public, they are a key plank in ensuring that those offenders who potentially pose a risk to public safety are properly supervised and managed rather than being left to their own devices within the community.
	We want to build on the success of approved hostels by increasing their flexibility and levels of usage and, in doing so, to provide the prospects of increased public protection and reduction in re-offending, particularly amongst those on whom the court has imposed a drug testing and treatment order. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: I am a little puzzled. I have listened to the explanation given by the Minister and I have obviously missed something. As it stands, the Bill states that:
	"The Secretary of State may approve--
	(a) bail hostels,
	(b) community rehabilitation hostels,
	(c) other premises in which accommodation is provided for use in connection with the supervision or rehabilitation of offenders".
	That is entirely consistent with what the Minister said.
	But that is to be removed from the Bill in favour of,
	"premises in which accommodation is provided--
	(a) for persons granted bail in criminal proceedings (within the meaning of the Bail Act 1976), or
	(b) for, or in connection with, the supervision or rehabilitation of persons convicted of offences".
	I cannot see the distinction between the two. What is wrong with the Secretary of State approving bail hostels? They have a definition in law; we know that there are clauses in the Bill which define what they are used for. The distinction between the two is not very clear from what the Minister has said.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Perhaps the noble Baroness does not understand what we are trying to achieve. We are trying to create a generic hostel which will give greater flexibility and enable us to maximise the use of the hostels estate. That is the important point.
	I do not see the difficulty. I am not sure that there is a difficulty; it is perhaps a difficulty more in the imagination than in the fact. We are trying to make sure that things work well, that we get best value and best benefit from what we have got, and that we get maximum flexibility in provision. It simply merges categories in order that we do not need to approve the same premises in three different ways. That is all it does. It provides us with the flexibility for this generic type of hostel.

Baroness Blatch: Is the Minister saying that there will not be such a thing as a bail hostel in future; that it will only be premises which have a number of different uses? Is that what the noble Lord is saying?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: That is exactly it.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 50 not moved.]

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 51:
	Page 5, line 8, after second ("any") insert ("reasonable").

Baroness Blatch: We are still on the subject of hostels. The Probation Service will be in some despair at what the noble Lord has just said, in that it is concerned about the name. Now, we understand, these are to be just "premises"; they do not appear to have a formal name. This is accommodation for anyone with a conviction, anyone who has been charged in the past. It is accommodation with or without supervision, if one takes all the answers that the noble Lord has given to the points raised during the course of our debates.
	These amendments relate to Clause 9. They relate to the funding for hostels, and to applying a kind of constraint. There needs to be some financial control in terms of the expectations of what is coming down from the Secretary of State, and also in terms of what is actually provided by the Secretary of State, and proper monitoring of it.
	Following the words,
	"under this section or the payment is made with a view to their approval",
	in Clause 9(3), my Amendment No. 52 would provide a new sub-paragraph:
	"The total expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under this section in any period of 12 months shall not exceed such sum as may be specified in a resolution of the House of Commons, unless a further resolution of the House of Commons determines otherwise"--
	in other words, that the actual amount ought to be within limits set by Parliament. The noble Lord has intimated that that is the view of the Government; namely, that the commitment should not be open-ended. The amendment is about financial control. It is also about the proper use of funds--in other words, value for money. When this debate took place in the Commons, I noted that a large number of examples were given where the control over finance was not as strong as it might have been. I hope that these amendments will provide that. I must again declare my disappointment that the Probation Service was not listened to as regards the name for the hostels. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: As I said earlier, we are trying to create a generic hostel type, provide greater flexibility and maximise the use of the hostels estate.
	The Opposition amendments appear to aim to retain the name of probation and limit the Secretary of State's discretion in making payments for hostels. I am not clear whether that was the intention of the amendments, but plainly it would be their effect.
	Amendment No. 51 would limit the amounts that the Secretary of State could pay towards the maintenance or development of approved hostels to what would be "reasonable".
	Amendment No. 52 would limit the overall amount that could be spent on the maintenance or development of hostels to a sum approved by the House of Commons.
	The use of the word "probation" as proposed in Amendment No. 50 would do nothing to clarify the purpose of the premises. We see no reason to fetter the power of the Secretary of State to spend money on approved hostels.
	Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 do not have a useful effect. They leave open the judgment as to how much expenditure might be deemed "reasonable". There is no good reason why expenditure on approved hostels should be treated differently from other expenditure on the national probation service by making it subject to special approval by the House of Commons.
	I cannot see that any useful purpose is served by the amendments. I understand that there is perhaps a desire to cling to historic names, but in this instance it does not help us in re-shaping and re-fashioning the service; nor do I think that the attempts to restrict expenditure in the way suggested in the amendments serves a useful purpose either. I therefore urge noble Lords to reject Amendments Nos. 51 and 52.

Baroness Blatch: I shall not argue with the points made by the noble Lord on my second two amendments. In regard to his response to my reference to the naming of the hostels, I am now totally confused--probably not because of the Minister but because of my own understanding of the Bill and of the amendments.
	It was my understanding that bail hostels were to be renamed "rehabilitation hostels". Do I understand now that they are just to be "premises"? The noble Lord said that our suggestions would cause great confusion in the community as regards the understanding of the purpose of these hostels. If he went into a market square and asked people what they thought of probation hostels, I am sure that he would find that they have some understanding, some perception, of a probation hostel. However, those people would not understand that they are just premises which might be used for the purpose of supervision or for rehabilitation.
	If we are to improve local understanding of the purpose of these premises, we must recognise that the location and the running of them are most sensitive issues in the community. The more we can do to improve understanding as to what they are about and what they are doing, the better. I wonder whether I have misinterpreted what the Minister said. Do these places now have no name other than "premises"?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I believe that the noble Baroness is creating more difficulty over this than is perhaps necessary. We are trying to achieve flexibility here in the use of the probation estate. Trying to pin down precisely what a particular premises may or may not be called will not help us a great deal. We are not saying that there should be a statutory name for each particular type of premises. I take note of the important point about the need to communicate more about what hostels do, or attempt to achieve, in the community. That is a valid point. However, I do not believe that that should necessarily have a bearing on the naming of those premises.
	There will not be a statutory name for such premises. We are trying to ensure that we make good use of the hostels for the benefit of a range of people who fall within the criminal justice system, whether they be on bail, serving a community sentence or on licence. I am not sure that my response will help the noble Baroness in her confusion, but I have tried. If she still remains confused at the end of our discussion, I shall be quite happy to provide her with further clarification in writing.

Baroness Blatch: I am having some fun in my mind about possible conversations that could take place in a high street. One lady meets another and asks her where she is going. She says, "I'm going to the board". "What board?" "Well, it's just the board. It used to be the probation board, but it is now called the board". This would, of course, be a local board. The next two ladies in a high street could be discussing a "premise". One says, "There is a planning application to build a premise or to use a premise". The other asks, "What do you mean by a premise?" "It is just a building". "What is the building?" "Well, it might have a variety of uses". I cannot believe that this situation will improve the understanding of the work of the service.
	There is a common understanding out there about the Probation Service; there is also a common understanding about hostels and their uses--for example, bail hostels, rehabilitation centres, and so on. At least they have a name that conveys the activity that takes place in the hostel and what it is. I do not whether the Government are rather slyly--I was about to say "shyly", but I do not think that they are shy--hiding behind what such places might be called when it comes to location. In other words, until they are built and occupied, or taken over as a "premises" with other uses and occupied, no one will know what is going on. People will find out by stealth that it is, for example, a hostel for people on bail, for sex offenders or for rehabilitation purposes.
	The Minister has dismissed these points, but they are important considerations when it comes to promoting an understanding and an awareness of the work of the service. I am only sorry that the noble Lord thinks that such confusion is acceptable and that my concerns are unnecessary: all we need to do is trust what he said. Everything will be all right and the public will fully understand. I do not believe that they will.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I believe that the noble Baroness invites me to respond. I shall try to offer further help. I do not think that there is any argument that the terminology is important. Descriptions can be confusing. I consider that the term "hostel" does not necessarily convey a great deal. It could be a hostel for homeless people or for those who suffer from alcohol abuse. The point we are trying to establish is that accommodation which forms part of the Probation Service estate should have a flexible use.
	There will, of course, be the opportunity to name particular premises. The intended use of premises would have to be described if they were to be the subject of a planning application and that would have to be made plain to the public. The noble Baroness makes a good point; namely, that it is important to have a wide understanding of the use to which the accommodation we are discussing is to be put. At present most hostels contain more than one category of offender. Therefore to call a building a bail hostel, or a hostel for those on licence, or a hostel for those on community service, does not necessarily convey a great deal to the wider public.
	Names will be given to the premises we are discussing and we shall endeavour to make them as descriptive as possible. However, to commit that to statute would not be helpful, as we might then be constrained as to the nature of description we might use. I hope that I have clarified matters and I hope that the noble Baroness feels a little happier with my response. If that is not the case, I shall try to keep her informed as we proceed through the Bill.

Baroness Blatch: I look forward to the applications being submitted. Even when that occurs, it will still not be possible to give a definitive name as the premises will still be used for a number of different purposes. The simplest possible solution is the term "probation hostel" as that covers community service, people on remand and people who are using the premises for purposes connected with the criminal justice system. However, I am not getting anywhere. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
	Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 10 [Default powers]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 53:
	Page 5, line 14, leave out from ("it") to end of line 16.

Baroness Blatch: In moving Amendment No. 53, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 54, 55, 56 and 57.
	These amendments seek to ensure that it should not be possible for the Secretary of State to institute a management order on a whim. A management order should be instituted as the result of a report that recommends such an order or suggests that a local board is failing. That restricts the right of the Secretary of State to intervene on a whim or at any time that he chooses. The Minister may say that certain situations may be so urgent that the Secretary of State needs to intervene quickly. However, I still believe that the inspectorate should be used as an arm of the Secretary of State to confirm that a situation is sufficiently serious to justify the Secretary of State issuing an order.
	Amendment No. 55 states:
	"A management order shall be effective for such period (not greater than 12 months)".
	That is a long period anyway and a period within which improvements may occur or events may lead to a board having to be replaced.
	Clause 10(5) states:
	"The power to revoke a management order is exercisable at any time when the Secretary of State considers it necessary ... to revoke it".
	Amendment No. 56 seeks to add to that sentence the words,
	"during the specified period mentioned in subsection (4A)".
	In other words, we know that the order can be revoked at any time. The Secretary of State must have that freedom and flexibility. However, if the order is revoked and the Secretary of State is satisfied that matters are back on an even keel, short of exceptional circumstances arising which would again warrant emergency intervention, he should not make another management order within 12 months. Stability will be all important. I have experience with schools. When they are improving, the last thing wanted is constant intervention. That destabilises organisations. It is important that some stability should be introduced.
	I seek not to labour the point. However, it is important that there is some order in the system and that the sometimes necessary intervention is undertaken on the basis of proper advice from the inspectorate. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Amendments Nos. 53 to 57 would make the default powers in Clause 10 inoperative. Amendment No. 57 prevents a management order made under Clause 10 from being renewed by requiring a 12-month gap between the arrangements unless, in the opinion of the Secretary of State and the chief inspector, the circumstances have changed in such way that the making of a further order is warranted. It may not be right to make a management order hastily within three months of a formal inspection. It may be better to allow a board time to improve, or to agree an action plan for improvement and demonstrate whether it can follow it.
	Providing good value for money is an important part of a board's remit. It is a specific failing which should be subject to being tackled through the powers under Clause 10 if it is clear that an alternative arrangement can offer better value to the taxpayer.
	A management arrangement which could not last for more than 12 months and then could be renewed only if the Secretary of State and the chief inspector agreed that circumstances had changed sufficiently to warrant the making of a further order would be impractical. No contractor would want to take on such a short term contract with no scope for renewal. No one could be expected to turn around a failing service in such a short period of time.
	I believe that these are unwise amendments. They would not serve a great and useful purpose. They could inhibit the way in which boards operate. I trust that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Blatch: I am sorry the Minister did not take up the point about providing some stability in fairly difficult situations. If it takes rather more than 12 months to bring round a service, the problem is very serious. There are many default powers in the Bill which allow the Secretary of State to replace the board, or even the chief executive. It is important that a service is not allowed to run for a period of more than 12 months while not performing to the level and giving the quality of service expected of it. That is the reason for the inclusion of the 12 month period. The Secretary of State should use some of his other powers.
	No one suggests that nothing can happen within those 12 months. If the Secretary of State is satisfied that the service is back on track, he can revoke the order. If he is not satisfied and believes that the situation is becoming worse, he can invoke his other powers.
	If, within a 12-month period, a service improves to the extent that no further intervention is required, it seems right to give it some breathing space. When a service has suffered the indignity and trauma of having failed and has made the effort to improve, 12 months is a relatively short period in the special circumstances allowed for in these amendments.
	I am sorry that the noble Lord interpreted the amendments as he did. I am clearly not getting anywhere with them. I think that the edict has gone out that no amendments should be accepted. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 54 to 58 not moved.]
	Clause 10 agreed to.
	Clause 11 agreed to.
	Schedule 2 [Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service]:

Baroness David: moved Amendment No. 59:
	Page 50, line 36, at end insert--
	("( ) the establishment of committees which include persons from the local community, courts and court users, the function of which is to advise area managers on the provision of local services and local recruitment.").

Baroness David: We now move to the part of the Bill dealing with CAFCASS. I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 59, 61 and 62. In the same group is Amendment No. 60, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel.
	A good deal was made on Second Reading of local accountability. The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, said:
	"I particularly welcome the fact that the Bill will result in a stronger national identity and consistency for probation services, together with strong local accountability and service delivery".--[Official Report, 3/7/00; col. 1316.]
	I shall enlarge a little on local accountability.
	Paragraph (4)(a) says that regulations may provide for
	"the establishment and functions of committees".
	I am asking for a local area advisory committee. That would be of significant benefit to CAFCASS in facilitating good links with communities, courts, court users and other service users. Such committees could include membership from local community and court user groups and would be in a position to give crucial advice to area managers on particular local issues as they affect the delivery of local services. That is particularly important if CAFCASS aims to be an exemplar organisation in the way in which it deals with anti-racism and diversity. Local input is very important.
	Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 refer to training and qualifications. Chief probation officers are concerned that the necessary training and qualifications are put in place to facilitate the recruitment of people from minority ethnic groups. The current profile of the three organisations whose functions will be taken over by CAFCASS does not reflect the diversity of this country's population. It is vital that arrangements are put in place early in the life of CAFCASS to encourage applications from minority ethnic groups. The chief probation officers are in favour of training that is locally available but centrally specified to meet national academic and professional standards. That is an important point.
	Amendment No. 62 is about the supervision of staff. The probation officers believe that the nature of the work that CAFCASS undertakes requires clear lines of accountability on standards and the quality of service. The Association of Chief Officers of Probation believes that a managed service is essential. The Waterhouse report supports that view, clearly identifying the importance of the supervision of practitioners. The probation officers know that there is an intention to establish 22 area managers and they hope that the new arrangements establish proper line management within the structure, so that all staff dealing with children are properly supervised. That is another important point.
	There are only a few people in the Chamber at the moment, but I hope that they will support my amendments. I beg to move.

The Earl of Listowel: I shall speak to Amendment No. 60, standing in my name, and to Amendment No. 62, standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady David.
	A recognised social work qualification is currently considered the barest minimum requirement for guardians ad litem. It is possessed by the majority of family court welfare officers. Soon, social workers engaged in work with families and children will be required to have a recognised qualifying award in child and family work. I submit that CAFCASS officers who undertake public law cases should have at least the same qualifications as the social workers whose actions they scrutinise. In Committee in the other place the Minister, Jane Kennedy, proposed to introduce a trainee grade of CAFCASS officers.
	CAFCASS officers with responsibility for working before the court have a demanding and challenging task. My amendment would ensure that there was never a risk of juniors or unqualified trainees undertaking such work. It would prevent the dilution of the service in the face of financial or other pressures. It would ensure that CAFCASS officers working before the court had sufficient social work experience and analytic capacity to be a credible and trenchant advocate for the child.
	I move on to Amendment No. 62. With great respect to the noble Baroness, Lady David, I question her amendment regarding supervision. Given the complexity of the task of reconciling the two very different management structures of the family welfare court officers and the guardians, it would be premature to prescribe the management arrangements in primary legislation. I believe that that is best left to regulation.
	By way of illustration of the difference between those two organisations, the approximate ratio of managers to officers in north London in the guardian service is 1:70; that is, one manager to 70 officers. In the family welfare court service it is 1:10; that is, one manager to 10 officers. Yet both services enjoy good reputations.

Baroness Hanham: My name and that of my noble friend Lady Blatch are also attached to the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. Briefly, I support what he has said.
	The amendment to which he has spoken fills the gap left in the current paragraph 5(2). As he said very cogently, the problem created by the formation of this new, very inaptly named service is to provide a uniformity of qualification which will ensure that the new family court officers have sufficient experience and expertise in dealing with families and, most particularly, as the noble Earl said, with children.
	All guardians ad litem and most court welfare officers currently hold a social work qualification. However, the new clause put forward by the noble Earl would ensure that future recruits to the service come from a similar background. In time--and it is intimated in the Bill that this will happen--there may also be developed specific qualifications for this service. However, the social work background would give assurance of appropriate qualifications and standards.
	It is necessary to have officers with experience which enables them to identify quickly the children who are vulnerable and emotional, to assess their needs, to take their views, conduct interviews with other people related to the case and then, most importantly, to present a cogent and helpful report to the court. That requires confidence, maturity and experience, as well as academic ability-- something which practically all guardians ad litem hold at the moment, as well as the court welfare officers.
	The new service will also need people at various levels of management, and a career structure for them will be important. Therefore, I support the second and third paragraphs of the noble Earl's amendment.

Lord Bach: As my noble friend Lady David said, we now come to the CAFCASS part of the Bill--the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, to give its full title. That will be set up as an executive, non-departmental public body accountable to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. As Members of the Committee will know, CAFCASS will bring together for the first time the work of three impressive but disparate groups: the guardian ad litem and reporting officer panels, the Family Court Welfare Service and the children's work of the Official Solicitor.
	The bringing together of those groups into one organisation has, it is fair to say, been generally and widely supported by all the political parties and, perhaps more important, by experts in the field. I am happy to be able to tell the Committee that the President of the Family Division, who has a real concern in these matters, to whom I have had the pleasure of speaking about the establishment of CAFCASS, has given me express permission to tell the Committee how much she supports the setting up of that organisation. Of course, not only are the Government grateful for that view but they are grateful also for the general support for the setting up of this body.
	The consequences of setting up CAFCASS will be, we believe, a more child-focused service, pooling the experience and expertise of the three worthwhile services which I have mentioned. It will be a more professional service which highlights and disseminates best practice. Secondly, it will ensure continual professional development of staff, which is important in relation to these amendments, so that the staff are up to date with new developments--for example, the consequences of the recent Court of Appeal decisions on cases involving domestic violence. Thirdly, it will provide a better service for the courts based on the above points and the greater adaptability and flexibility of a national service whose staff will increasingly be able to work across the current professional boundaries between court welfare and guardian work. Fourthly and lastly, it will be a more visible and accountable service, being a national service with a voice in the development of policy and a service open to independent inspection and audit and accountable to Parliament, through the Lord Chancellor, for its performance.
	I turn to the amendments. I deal first with Amendment No. 59 which my noble friend Lady David moved. CAFCASS will need to have open and transparent arrangements to ensure that there is local dialogue with its stakeholders; namely, its users and other agencies in the family justice system. There are existing, if imperfect, arrangements to allow CAFCASS to work with stakeholders locally. We believe that the way to approach the matter is to build and improve on what is already there.
	The most obvious existing structure is the network of family court business committees--FCBCs--based at care centres around the country. Their role is to monitor the handling of children cases through local courts, including family proceedings courts, and to discuss issues of local concern. Those discussions include matters such as recruitment difficulties and ways of improving administrative arrangements so as to maximise available resources. GALRO panel managers and the FCWOs are already members of those committees and it is envisaged that CAFCASS will take on the role which GALRO and the FCWOs have played.
	In addition to those committees, there is a network of parallel family court fora which included wider representation, including mediators and family groups. We recognise that there are problems with that system, not least that insufficient notice can be taken of the family perspective. We plan to address the problems but we believe that having the requirement for a further set of committees on the face of the Bill will not in itself improve arrangements. We believe that on balance, although of course we see the purpose behind Amendment No. 59, it could restrict the options available.
	I turn now to Amendment No. 60 in the name of the noble Earl. We acknowledge, of course, the importance of having skilled, experienced and trained staff in CAFCASS. If it is to be the outstanding service that everyone wants it to be and it meets both the needs of children and the courts, it is imperative that officers of the service should have the knowledge and skills appropriate to the particular task.
	Having said that, at once I must say that we have reservations about the amendment itself. We recognise that most staff who will transfer to CAFCASS have social work qualifications, but to set out the entry requirements on the face of the Bill seems to us to go too far.
	We believe the first part of Amendment No. 60 would fetter the discretion of the service to recruit from the widest possible pool of potential staff and reduce its capacity to ensure that staff reflect the diversity of society. Importantly, it would also call into question the position within CAFCASS of the case workers of the Official Solicitor, the majority of whom are not qualified social workers but whose work is highly valued by the senior members of the judiciary. Of course, they too will be part of the staff of CAFCASS.
	Noble Lords are concerned that CAFCASS should maintain or improve existing professional standards across the services that it will provide. The Government share the same concern, which is why, as part of the development of CAFCASS, work is going on specifically on training, professional accreditation and professional development in the new service. It will be important to ensure that staff undertaking particular tasks are properly equipped to do so. In the same way, staff who receive training will have to work under supervision, as they currently do in the Family Court Welfare Service. We do not believe it is necessary to restrict entry to the service in the way that the first part of the amendment of the noble Earl would do.
	The second part of the amendment leads us to these conclusions. Paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 remits to secondary legislation the provision as to the qualification, experience and training to be required of officers of the service. It seems to us that that is the proper way to deal with those issues, and we shall bring forward proposals in due course.
	Clearly, staff will need to be appropriately trained. Those who will rely on the service of officers of CAFCASS should expect nothing less, but we do not believe it adds anything to the legislation to deal with those matters in the broad way proposed.
	We also believe that the third part of the amendment of the noble Earl is properly dealt with under paragraph 5 of Schedule 2. The regulations that will be created under the schedule will apply to both those in management as well front-line staff. As I mentioned, we believe that that is the proper way to deal with the issues.
	I turn to the second amendment of my noble friend Lady David, Amendment No. 61. We fully recognise the importance of training for CAFCASS but again we have reservations about the precise amendment. We do not believe that it is helpful to place on the face of the Bill details of how training should be organised and delivered. As I explained earlier, this paragraph of Schedule 2 remits to secondary legislation the provision as to the qualification, experience and training to be required of officers of CAFCASS. We feel that that is the proper way to deal with those issues and we shall bring forward proposals.
	The amendment seeks to specify how training should be organised and delivered. Clearly, some training must be made available locally. However, more specialist training--by way of example on Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy--may be better delivered from a few centres of expertise. We believe that the effect of the amendment will be to create some inflexibility in the service's ability to consider options for developing and securing the necessary training for its staff.
	I know that my noble friend is concerned that CAFCASS should maintain or improve existing professional standards across the service that it will provide. She is further concerned that CAFCASS should be an organisation that reflects the diversity of the population that it serves. We share those concerns which is why, as part of the development of CAFCASS, work is going on specifically on training, professional accreditation, professional development and diversity in the new service.
	Clearly, the staff of the new service will need to be appropriately trained and have opportunities for professional development that I have mentioned. The courts, the inspectorate and others will expect nothing less, but we do not believe that the amendment is the right way to deal with it.
	Regulations will provide the framework to establish the necessary qualifications, experience and training required. We feel it would be wrong to constrain the board's ability to decide what is appropriate training.
	In relation to Amendment No. 62, we appreciate my noble friend's concern that those who work with children are supervised appropriately and are accountable for their work. However, we are not convinced that that would be achieved by requiring directions to say that. We need to look at how the service will work and the framework surrounding its operation and that of its officers. It is our intention--we will come to this in Amendment No. 79--that the Protection of Children Act 1999 and the protection of children provisions in this Bill will apply to officers of CAFCASS so that those employees of the service who have unsupervised access to children are subject to checks before employment starts.
	The creation of CAFCASS provides a unique opportunity to develop a single organisation covering England and Wales which will be transparent and accountable. Officers of the service will work within national standards. The service will be subject to independent inspection and the Rules of Court define how many CAFCASS practitioners should undertake their work. Within those rules an important and frequently used practice is that directions hearings offer courts further opportunities to direct how specific aspects of the case should be considered. We believe that those arrangements provide a significant and robust framework to ensure the probity and effectiveness of the officers of CAFCASS.
	Those will be the tools on which the management of CAFCASS can build to ensure professional development and quality of officers of the service. It seems to us that the proper way to deal with issues of supervision and accountability is through national standards, Rules of Court, inspection and the role of management in professional development and quality. We are not complacent. Paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 seeks to have reserve powers if there is concern about the quality of work in CAFCASS. But to seek to define how that may be achieved on the face of the Bill would be inflexible and limit the development of the service.
	We are grateful to all those who have spoken on these amendments. I hope that my response has gone some way to meet their concerns.

Baroness Hanham: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I can refer him back to the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. My worry in relation to the way the situation is developing is that our service currently has qualified social workers. I refer particularly to the family proceedings court in which, as the noble Lord will be aware, I sit as a magistrate. But we are moving from one service into another. Currently the social work qualifications guide the standards of those who carry out the work with children who then come before the court.
	However much the Government may intend to develop a new qualification and new standards, they will not be introduced within the next six months to one year. In that time recruitment will either have to be limited to those who are coming in from the court welfare offices and the guardian ad litem--though I accept the point about the Official Solicitor. If recruiting is done from outside, there will not be an appropriate standard because one will not yet have been developed. My concern therefore is the interim period before an appropriate standard and qualification is developed for the new combined service. Therefore there should be a clear definition of the minimum standard and qualification, particularly for those appearing before the family proceedings court.

The Earl of Listowel: I should have said that I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch and Lady Hanham, for their support on this amendment. I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for his detailed response. He may wish to correct me but I believe that the case workers of the Official Solicitor's office were required until recently to have a social work qualification. They are small in number in relation to the general manning of the operation. Would it be too much to ask that all CAFCASS officers should have a qualification in social work?

Lord Bach: I am grateful for the contributions of the noble Earl and the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, with her experience of court work. The number coming from the Official Solicitor's Department will be small in comparison with the other two services which will make up CAFCASS. I do not believe that that small number should be a reason for saying that everyone working in CAFCASS should have a social welfare qualification. It would make the organisation of the service difficult because valuable members of the Official Solicitor's staff would be prevented from transferring. That would spoil the effect.
	We shall be consulting on regulations as regards qualifications and accreditation. I can reassure the Committee that CAFCASS will advertise for staff qualified in social work. That may go some way towards relieving the anxieties expressed. However, for reasons stated, we do not believe it is appropriate to place that requirement on the face of the Bill. We are not far apart in accepting the needfor high quality entrants to this important service. We are concerned that staff coming from the Official Solicitor's office should be treated as equals and accepted in the unique role they will play in the organisation.

Baroness David: I thank the Minister for his full and interesting reply. I also thank other noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, which has been interesting and important. The Minister mentioned recruitment difficulties but did not answer the point about improving the quantity of people who come from the ethnic minorities. I hope that that will be borne in mind.
	The Minister said a great deal which I want to read in Hansard and consider before deciding what, if anything, should be done at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 60 to 62 not moved.]

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 63:
	Page 52, line 40, leave out ("prescribed persons") and insert ("any person").

Baroness Hanham: Amendment No. 63 is similar to one moved by my noble friend Lady Blatch earlier today. It is also similar to an amendment which was moved in another place where the Minister did not agree that "prescribed persons" should be changed. I am probably teaching Ministers opposite to suck eggs. But it was said that only people party to the proceedings should have the right to make the complaint. I am concerned about that definition because it is limiting.
	No one would want to instigate a process that brought forward a host of vexatious litigants. However, it is our contention that many people who are not parties to the case--for example, close family members of a child--who feel that the proceedings have not been conducted properly, or that they have had an adverse result, or that for some perverse reason they have been excluded from being parties to those proceedings, should be able to make a complaint if they feel it appropriate. It should be possible to pass legislation which does not open the door to vexatious litigation.
	In addition, the Bill is currently deficient in giving any formula for a complaints process, even though the schedule makes provision for one to be established. The amendment would mean that the Lord Chancellor, who will oversee the new service, would appoint an ombudsman or independent arbitrator to determine a complaint and a tribunal to deal with appeals against his decisions. We believe it is important that that process should be defined on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Bach: The noble Baroness will not be surprised if I adopt the same arguments used in another place by my honourable friend Jane Kennedy and earlier in Committee, in respect of an equivalent matter elsewhere in the Bill.
	We agree that it is important to ensure that the service is required to establish and publicise a complaints system but do not believe that "prescribed person" should be replaced by "any person" because the ability to make complaints should be reserved to those who are a party to proceedings. If anyone were given the right to complain, there is a real risk that CAFCASS would face vexatious complaints from individuals or organisations hostile to the idea of the service, policy or legal framework on which it bases its reports.
	As to Amendment No. 64, we agree on the importance of establishing an independent safeguard for those who feel cause for complaint with the service. For that reason, Schedule 2(17) brings CAFCASS into the remit of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. We hope that deals with the concern expressed in Amendment No. 64 and that it is therefore unnecessary. Bringing CAFCASS into the commissioner's remit will provide an independent safeguard for those who feel cause for complaint with the service.

Baroness Hanham: While I am slightly more reassured in respect of the second part of Amendment No. 64, I remain concerned about the prescriptive nature of the people who will be permitted to complain. The Minister referred to the parties to proceedings but the Bill limits to three or four the number of people being able to make a complaint on the back of anything that has gone wrong. People beyond those who are parties to proceedings may feel that it would be appropriate to make a complaint. The provision needs widening beyond "prescribed persons"--unless they are extended beyond those who are parties to proceedings. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]
	Schedule 2 agreed to.
	Clause 12 [Principal functions of the Service]:

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 65:
	Page 6, line 11, after ("welfare") insert ("and interests").

Baroness Hanham: While recognising that the Children Act 1989 refers only to the welfare of the child and the existing clause would conform, that suggests that a child has only a passive role in matters relating to him or her--whereas promoting its interests suggests active involvement by the child in identifying his or her future needs and requirements.
	The words "welfare" and "interests" are not totally synonymous. According to Collins Dictionary, "welfare" means "health, happiness, prosperity, well-being", and "interests" are defined as "benefit or advantage". I suggest to the Committee that both are of equal importance in assessing a child's situation and the best options for its future. To have both in the legislation will enhance the requirements under this clause. I beg to move.

Lord Bach: We believe that this amendment is effectively a distinction without a difference. The intention to represent the interests of children is clear enough in the clause as drafted. The function of promoting and safeguarding the welfare of children clearly covers their interests. Unless noble Baronesses opposite can postulate a case in which something which is in the interests of a child is contrary to its welfare, we believe that the amendment is unnecessary. We intend to revise the rules of court to reflect the introduction of CAFCASS and deal with any distinction in that way by specifically addressing the different procedures in public and private law cases. On reflection, we do not believe that the amendment adds anything to the Bill. We find it difficult to envisage a situation in which the child's interest and its welfare are at odds. I am unable to accept the amendment tonight.

Baroness Hanham: Having sat through the whole of the proceedings this afternoon, I am not surprised to hear that the amendment is not accepted; that is par for the course. I should like the amendment to be accepted. I shall read carefully what the Minister said. I believe that "interest" expands very much on "welfare" and goes beyond it. It is important that that is the situation in court proceedings. I am sure that the Minister is as well aware as I am that often in court advice is received about the interests of the child, not just its welfare. It is sensible, right and proper that that should be recognised in legislation. I do not press this matter at the moment and seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 12 agreed to.
	Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
	Clause 15 [Right to conduct litigation and right of audience]:

The Earl of Listowel: moved Amendment No. 66:
	Page 7, line 14, leave out ("in the exercise of his functions") and insert ("to instruct a suitably qualified lawyer").

The Earl of Listowel: The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that the current high standard of representation of children in public law proceedings continues. Concern about the diminution of that high standard has been expressed by Barnardo's, the National Association of Guardians Ad Litem and Reporting Officers and several noble Lords at Second Reading. Currently, the rights of a child are represented by a solicitor from the children's panel and the child's welfare interests are represented by its guardian ad litem. These two professionals, with their two distinct and complementary disciplines, have been highly effective in ensuring proper representation of the child. There should be no risk of false economies being made on the tandem representation arrangement under CAFCASS. Mistakes in decisions about long-term arrangements for troubled children are tragic for those children and extremely costly for society.
	If the purpose of the clause is to preserve the right of audience of official solicitors that should be articulated clearly on the face of the Bill. It is vital that the right of children to the best tandem representation is not vulnerable to erosion by future administrations. I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham: I support the amendment. As the noble Earl demonstrated, the clause has two deficiencies. First, it appears to override the accepted practice that in public law cases--for example, when the state is involved--the guardian ad litem will always appoint a solicitor or legal adviser to represent the child who is the subject of the proceedings. That is accepted practice. It is accepted in the Children Act 1989 but it is not reflected in this part of the Bill. The Bill could be misconstrued as meaning that in public law cases it is not necessary for there to be a legally qualified representative for the child. That is a major deficiency.
	Secondly, if there is a contested case in private law cases, where the child is a party he or she should be separately represented by a qualified lawyer who is not associated with the court welfare service. The court welfare officer is an adviser to the court, not a quasi-lawyer. The roles of both in the proceedings are different. It is interesting that in the 1998 consultation paper the question of non-legally qualified people having the right of audience in court was not raised as an issue. What was put forward was the limiting of the amount of representation to part of the proceedings or to advice, not to exclusion.
	This is one of the most important issues in the Bill. In our view, the clause as it stands is fundamentally flawed.

Lord Bach: In relation to Amendment No. 66, I must stress straightaway and put it clearly on the record that it is not the Government's intention that the tandem model of guardian and legal representation in public law cases should change. It works and is well respected. Clause 15(1) appears as it does because it is needed to replicate the work of the Official Solicitor. The amendment would mean that it could not do that. However, we are willing to give reassurances that this power would be used only in the small number of cases that currently fall to the Official Solicitor.
	CAFCASS is being created by bringing together the three services to which I have referred. If we are successfully to achieve that we have to ensure that CAFCASS will have the full range of powers and responsibilities that all the existing services--not just one or two--have. That is the purpose of Clause 15. The noble Earl is concerned that the clause does not restrict the right to litigate to legally qualified officers of CAFCASS. However, I shall attempt to persuade both the noble Earl and the noble Baroness that that is not the intention behind the clause and that the clause will not undermine the tandem model which currently operates in public law cases.
	If we did not have the provision in Clause 15, CAFCASS would not be able to reflect the work of the Official Solicitor. It is based on Section 90 of the Supreme Court Act, which allows the Official Solicitor to conduct litigation regardless of whether he is a solicitor or barrister. We anticipate that 21 caseworkers, four divisional managers and three family lawyers will transfer to CAFCASS from the Official Solicitor. It will be necessary for all those people to have the right to conduct litigation and a right of audience. Currently, a small number of experienced caseworkers regularly attends directions hearings in private law cases before district judges. They also attend directions hearings in public law cases. The case workers undertaking that work do so under the direction of a qualified lawyer. In transferring the work of the Official Solicitor to CAFCASS, we think it would be wrong to lose that experience.
	The practice of non-lawyers conducting cases and appearing in court on preliminary matters is not wholly unusual. For example, probation officers are able to prosecute cases where there is a breach of a community order, and regularly do so in courts up and down the land.
	Of course, as happens now, when Official Solicitor cases reach the court for trial in serious matters--we all know of such cases that have been reported recently in the newspapers--their qualified lawyers take over and deal with those cases. They will continue so to do. It is not our intention that this clause should undermine the tandem model of GALROs and solicitors working together to ensure that the child is properly represented. The tandem model works well and we want to retain it. It is enshrined in the rules of court that once a guardian is appointed, they then engage a lawyer to legally represent the child. The rules will need to be updated to take account of the emergence of CAFCASS, but we intend to preserve the tandem model in the updated rules. It would not be possible, therefore, for CAFCASS to require guardians transferring into the new service to take on the role of the child's legal advocate.
	That last point has been a matter of concern to those representing GALROs; namely, that they will be required to appear in court as advocates for the child. I can give to the Committee the reassurance that that will not change. It would not be right if it were to change. In public law cases the child is made a party to the case and has the right to legal representation. Article 6 deals with the right to a fair trial. There would be clear difficulties in establishing that CAFCASS had complied with this requirement if it were to require children in public law cases to be legally represented by an inexperienced officer. Clause 15 will enable CAFCASS to be responsive to the specialist nature of the work undertaken by the Official Solicitor, as is currently the position.
	I hope that the noble Earl will accept my reassurance that there is nothing sinister in Clause 15. It is not intended to undermine the tandem model or to force GALROs to undertake litigation. It ensures simply that CAFCASS is able to act as the Official Solicitor does now.
	In a small number of cases, officers of CAFCASS will undertake litigation, as would the staff of the Official Solicitor now. When they appear in court as litigants, it would be inappropriate for them to be subject to cross-examination where this was their only involvement in the case. However, if they were not advocates in the case, they would be open to cross-examination in a broader manner than is the case now. Currently, I believe that family court welfare officers are not normally cross-examined as regards their reports, unlike guardians, who can be cross-examined. It is our intention that anyone who is not an advocate in the case itself will be open to cross-examination. It is not usual in court proceedings for an advocate to be cross-examined without extremely good and obvious reasons. I therefore invite the noble Earl to withdraw Amendment No. 66.

Baroness Hanham: Before the noble Earl rises to make his response, perhaps I may press the Minister further. The problem with Clause 15 is that it does not say what the Minister intends it to say. That makes for poor legislation. What it states is,
	"to conduct litigation in relation to any proceedings in any court".
	That is prefaced by:
	"The Service may authorise an officer".
	If the only officers being referred to here by the Minister are those from the Official Solicitor under Section 19 of the Supreme Court Act, then it seems to me that it would be sensible to say so. Otherwise, the question is left open as to whether the tandem proceedings are being interfered with or whether children who are parties in private law cases are in fact stopped from receiving the legal representation to which they are entitled by substituting an officer to fulfil that role.
	I hope that the Minister will be kind enough to take this away and reflect on what I have said. This is such an important part of the Bill. Furthermore, it is extremely important to ensure that children do receive proper and qualified legal representation. It would be quite wrong if the legislation were to lead anyone to misunderstand those circumstances.
	The Minister went on into an area that we had not covered--that is, the cross-examination of advocates. Now that he has mentioned the matter, perhaps I may comment on it. It is obviously clear that where an advocate is acting for and on behalf of the child there should be no question of that advocate being put into the witness box. That would leave the child unprotected at that stage. In public proceedings, of course, the guardian ad litem--now the CAFCASS representative--would be put in that position, not the child's representative.
	But that is the second part of the issue. It is the first part in regard to representation that I would ask the Minister to look at again.

Lord Bach: I can give the noble Baroness an assurance that I shall look at it again. I should make clear our position in regard to the principle of the separate representation of children in all private law cases: we do not support the principle of separate representation of children in all private law cases. There may be cases where that is appropriate, but it would be wrong to use the Bill to introduce the idea of universal independent representation in that kind of case. The noble Baroness will know well that there rarely is separate representation for the child in divorce cases. CAFCASS will provide representation for the children in many cases.
	The law of England and Wales provides for the views of the child to be conveyed to the court by a number of means, including via the Official Solicitor, via the court welfare officer and via the guardian ad litem as appropriate. In making any decision about the upbringing of a child, the court is required to treat the welfare of that child as paramount. I repeat that in public law cases the position that has obtained up until now will be continued--and that, of course, is now on the record. But I shall go back and look again at the points made by the noble Earl and the noble Baroness.

The Earl of Listowel: I am grateful to the Minister for his reassurance. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, for her eloquent pursuance of this most important point. She clearly emphasised the importance of this tandem representation; that it should not be allowed to be eroded or put into a situation where it might be eroded in a few years time. Obviously there needs to be clarity. I hope that the Minister will think a little further on this and perhaps differentiate and make quite clear that the clause is designed for the Official Solicitor. I thank the noble Lord for his response and I shall consider his words further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 67 not moved.]
	On Question, Whether Clause 15 shall stand part of the Bill?

Baroness Hanham: I indicated at an earlier stage that we would oppose Clause 15 standing as part of the Bill. On the understanding that there will be careful reflection on the matters I have raised, with the possibility of that part of the legislation being amended to make clear what we have discussed today, I shall not oppose Clause 15 standing as part of the Bill. I accept fully the assurances that have been given; I appreciate that they have been recorded in Hansard. However, I am well aware that very few people read Hansard after the legislation has been formed and therefore it is probably better to have it clarified in the legislation. Under those circumstances, if the Minister can give me that assurance, I shall not oppose Clause 15 standing part of the Bill. I look forward to seeing what the Minister comes back with at a later stage.

Lord Bach: I have already given the noble Baroness that assurance about the matters that concern her in Clause 15.

Clause 15 agreed to.
	Clause 16 [Cross-examination of officers of the Service]:
	[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
	Clause 16 agreed to.
	Clause 17 [Inspection]:

The Earl of Listowel: moved Amendment No. 69:
	Leave out Clause 17 and insert the following new Clause--
	:TITLE3:INSPECTION
	(" . It shall be the duty of the Social Services Inspectorate--(a) to inspect and report to the Secretary of State on the performance by the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, and the officers of the Service, of their functions, and
	(b) to discharge, in connection with those functions or with related functions of any other person, such functions as the Secretary of State may from time to time direct.").

The Earl of Listowel: This amendment stands also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.
	It has already been the job of the Social Services Inspectorate to examine the work of guardians ad litem. SSI inspectors often have recognised social work qualifications and experience. They are certainly from a culture of social work or social work research. They are therefore well-equipped to judge whether the service is working in the interests of children and families. Their appointment as the inspectorate would signal clearly that the welfare of children and families is at the heart of CAFCASS's work. Indeed, I very much hope that the Government will use the expertise of the Social Services Inspectorate continually to elevate the standards of CAFCASS's work.
	The magistrates' inspectorate, on the other hand, does not have expertise in the area of child and family welfare. Its focus is on administration and property management. Surely, it would be in the best interests of children and families if the SSI were charged with the inspection of CAFCASS and was then empowered to draw on the valuable experience of the magistrates' inspectorate as necessary. I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham: I support the noble Earl in his comments. The important point is that there should be an inspectorate of the service. We are dealing with the question of who should carry out the inspection. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that the Social Services Inspectorate is probably more appropriate. From the look on the Minister's face, I am not sure that he agrees with me. I support the amendment.

Lord Bach: The noble Baroness's use of the word "probably" caused me to look quizzically at her.
	We have considered carefully all the options before deciding that our preference is for Her Majesty's Magistrates' Court Service Inspectorate to be the inspectors in this case. That body understands the courts, has established links with the Lord Chancellor and, importantly, covers both England and Wales. We are conscious that the inspectorate will need to supplement its existing knowledge in the first instance, so enabling it to become properly equipped to carry out the inspection function.
	There is a Social Services Inspectorate for England and a Social Services Inspectorate for Wales. Therefore, there would be two inspectorate services inspecting one organisation. I remind the Committee that CAFCASS will cover both England and Wales. We believe that, rather than incorporate this cumbersome framework on the face of the Bill, it would be better to have one lead body responsible and encourage it to draw in expertise as and when necessary.
	I acknowledge the concerns that noble Lords have raised. However, we believe that the MCSI will work closely with the Social Services Inspectorate and other bodies to develop its knowledge as regards children and family matters.
	Undoubtedly Her Majesty's Magistrates' Court Service Inspectorate will need to work closely with those other organisations as well as the HMIP to gain experience in this field. There are pre-existing, clear reporting lines between the MCSI and the Lord Chancellor. As the inspectorate for CAFCASS, the MCSI has the potential to be very flexible thus enabling the inspectorate to develop expertise and keep up with any future developments of CAFCASS. Therefore, although we recognise the real feeling behind the amendment, I am afraid that we must oppose it.

Baroness Blatch: It was not my intention to intervene on this amendment because my noble friend is more than ably coping with the subject. However, I have to express wry amusement at the arguments just deployed by the Minister. I have in mind his comments in relation to having two inspectorates--the Welsh inspectorate and the English inspectorate. My understanding is that the Welsh one would inspect Welsh interests and the English one would inspect English interests. Nevertheless, this is a very good example of not having very joined-up government.
	We spent many hours in this Chamber arguing against the very point of having two inspectorates operating in the same field; namely, the adult learning inspectorate and Ofsted in education. We were not even talking about operating in two different countries; we were talking about operating and inspecting in the same establishments. We put forward all the arguments about how cumbersome and difficult that was and pointed out the problems that would arise as a result. The Minister actually used those arguments this evening in his response and said that it would not be advisable to have two inspectorates and that it would be better to have one. As I said, I have only spoken to express wry amusement.

Lord Bach: The noble Baroness will undoubtedly be pleased that we have come round to her point of view.

The Earl of Listowel: I thank the Minister for his reply, which I shall consider. The argument that England and Wales are separate in this context seems a little strange to me. Surely it is important to place the emphasis on the well-being of families and children in this new service. One must not lose that focus under the new arrangements. I shall, therefore, carefully consider what the noble Lord said, but I may well return to the matter. On that condition, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 17 agreed to.
	Clause 18 [Definitions]:
	[Amendment No. 70 not moved.]

Lord Dholakia: moved Amendment No. 71:
	Page 8, line 31, leave out ("local") and insert ("probation").

Lord Dholakia: This amendment relates to definitions. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has repeatedly drawn our attention to this particular issue, so I do not need to labour the point any further. If one looks at the clause, it says:
	"'New Employer' means a local board or the Service".
	However, the "Old Employer" is defined as a,
	"local authority, [or] a probation committee".
	The problem that I have is with the term "local board". There is ample confusion as it is about that term, without bringing the word "probation" into the equation. However, the Minister has already conceded that when the service is expanded in relation to local areas the geographical situation, together with the word "probation", will be included.
	The Central Probation Council has been in touch with me about this particular confusion. There ought to be someone in the Civil Service who could sit down, look at the Bill and actually sort out the matter so that everyone who reads it will understand what it means. At the end of the day, the success of the probation committees in local areas will not depend on what you direct centrally; it will depend on the efforts of local people and the identity shared with local areas. If local people cannot even identify the matter in terms of their own concern, we shall be wasting our time.
	Even at this late hour, perhaps I may suggest that if the Minister were to accept this very simple suggestion to identify not simply "local boards" but also "local probation boards", that would make a lot of sense. I beg to move.

Baroness Thornton: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 73 tabled in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Habgood. We share a concern regarding the future of family mediation which has prompted this amendment. I should declare an interest here as someone with a long association with NCH Action for Children, which, together with National Family Mediation, is a major voluntary-sector provider of family mediation support services, mainly through its partnership with the Probation Service at local level. There is a great danger that for want of adequate funding and transitional arrangements these services are now in jeopardy. The legislation that we are considering imposes a kind of planning blight on them, if I can put it that way. The purpose of the amendment is to enable assurances to be sought concerning the maintenance of adequate funding for family mediation and related services from the present time and through the period of transition until the new arrangements are fully implemented.
	As I said on Second Reading, the problem--this situation has not yet improved--is that some of the probation partners who fund this service are either reducing their funding or making grants on a "spot" basis year on year. For example, in the case of NCH Action for Children, which provides seven services for areas including the whole of inner London, Manchester and most of Wales, the reduction in funding of £36,000 and not being able to plan beyond March 2001--because no contracts have been issued beyond that date--means that they will shortly find themselves unable to sustain services in some of these areas of great need.
	These are not great sums. The problems involve administration, but the loss of these services would mean that the new CAFCASS--which is supported by many children's organisations--would have to recreate them. Instead of being able to build on and develop existing services, we would squander the work and skills of National Family Mediation and NCH Action for Children in this field. For want of attention to detail in the transition we could lose what already exists and engender more expense and more work as a result. Time is now short. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to offer me some hope.

Lord Habgood: I support what the noble Baroness has said. I declare an interest as patron of National Family Mediation. Our main concern is for the children who will suffer if these services collapse, as they will unless there is some firm assurance that funding will be available. We are talking about minuscule sums. I worked out that the sum involved would be enough to keep the Dome going for about eight hours.

Lord Dholakia: I have already spoken but I hope that the Minister will not object if I speak again. I forgot to mention that Amendment No. 77, which stands in my name, concerns the commencement of the operation of the service. Is it not right and proper that no scheme should be made under Clauses 19 or 20 for the transfer to the service of any property or employee before April 2002, as stated in the amendment? I hope that the Minister will comment on that.

Lord Bach: Some government amendments are attached to the group we are discussing which I shall discuss first. I shall then discuss Amendments Nos. 71 and 77. Finally I shall deal with what many may consider to be the most important amendment of the group; namely, Amendment No. 73 spoken to by my noble friend Lady Thornton.
	This group of amendments concerns matters relating to the transfer of property and liabilities and the creation of the national probation service and CAFCASS. Government Amendment No. 76 is a drafting amendment. The amendment makes the clause clearer with regard to the consultation procedures that may be required as part of a scheme to transfer staff from an "old employer" (such as a probation committee) to a "new employer" (that is, either a local board or CAFCASS).
	The original clause refers simply to "prescribed requirements" of consultation. The new wording as applied by this amendment makes clear that any directions about consultation will be set out by the appropriate Minister (either my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor or my right honourable friend the Home Secretary).
	Amendment No. 78 is a drafting amendment. The amendment makes the clause clearer with regard to the consultation procedures that may be required as part of a scheme to transfer staff from a local board of CAFCASS to a new employer, for example on the contracting out of a particular function of the board or service.
	I referred to Amendment No. 79 earlier. This new clause will ensure that the Protection of Children Act 1999 will apply to CAFCASS and its officers. It will further ensure that those organisations which perform functions on behalf of CAFCASS will be governed by the Protection of Children Act 1999.
	That Act is designed to afford greater protection to children who may be put at risk of harm. The Act places a duty on childcare organisations to refer to the Secretary of State individuals who have been employed in a childcare position where they have been dismissed on ground of misconduct which harmed a child or placed a child at risk. Individuals are still covered even if they retire or resign before they are dismissed. Childcare organisations which are intending to employ someone are placed under a duty to ensure that the proposed employee is not kept on the list held by the Secretary of State. If that person is found to be on the list then the childcare organisation is not to employ them.
	As officers of CAFCASS, and those performing functions on behalf of CAFCASS, are likely to have unsupervised contact with children we think that it is important that these measures designed to protect children apply.
	This new clause makes it explicit that CAFCASS and organisations performing CAFCASS functions will be regulated by the 1999 Act. In addition we want CAFCASS to be under a duty to refer individuals who are dismissed for misconduct which harmed a child or put a child at risk of harm. The effect of the amendment is that CAFCASS, its officers and organisations performing functions on behalf of CAFCASS will be governed by the Protection of Children Act 1999.
	Amendment No. 80 is a consequential amendment relating to Amendment No. 49. In due course I shall move those government amendments.
	I do not think that the noble Lord who moved Amendment No. 71 expects me to say much more about it. We covered the issue in detail earlier. Our response has not changed in what seems the many hours since that debate.
	I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, expects me to accept Amendment No. 77. We do not think that there is any reason to suggest that the proposed implementation date of 1st April next year cannot be met. We are consulting widely about the implications of the Government's intentions and response from staff at all levels has been positive bearing in mind that change is not always universally and instinctively welcomed.
	I turn to Amendment No. 73. I thank my noble friend for raising the issue. At the same time I pay credit to the National Family Mediation and NCH Action for Children and other voluntary groups for the important work they do in the field of family mediation. The Government strongly support the principle of family mediation. We are keen to encourage its greater use to resolve family disputes. CAFCASS will have a continuing interest in supporting out of court alternative dispute resolution services. Out of court mediation has a valuable role to play in helping parents agree arrangements for their children following divorce and separation.
	Clause 12 gives CAFCASS powers to make grants and Clause 13 allows CAFCASS to enter arrangements with other organisations and people to deliver its functions. We believe that this gives this service the full range of powers to continue to fund mediation work in the future. However, we appreciate that that does not address the real concerns that my noble friend Lady Thornton and the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, have raised about the genuine funding problems that providers are facing.
	We want to ensure a smooth transfer of the existing partnership funding from the Probation Service to CAFCASS and to avoid money being withdrawn from current services. Clause 19(1)(b) makes provision for the transfer of liabilities to CAFCASS, which would include existing arrangements for funding mediation and support services. As noble Lords may know, the Home Office issued a circular in June asking probation committees to consider requests for new and future funding in much the same way as they have done to date. The guidance said that funding should continue beyond 31st March 2001 so that there is a smooth transfer to CAFCASS, using Clause 19(1)(b).
	In the light of representations that we have received--including a meeting that I attended nearly two weeks ago with my noble friend Lady Thornton, the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton and Jane Kennedy, the Minister in the Commons--Ministers at the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department are writing to chief probation officers, reminding them of the importance of ensuring a smooth transfer of partnership funding to CAFCASS.
	That letter has been signed by both the Ministers involved. It makes the position clear, saying:
	"We want CAFCASS to be able to work with partnership organisations to develop a strategic view of need and availability of mediation of contact centre services to support its work. It will struggle to do this if contracts cease on 31 March 2001 or soon afterwards. We now urge you to ensure that funding is continued until 31 March 2002, applying the same tests as before--i.e. that services are needed, effective and provide value--to allow CAFCASS to take a strategic view about these services".
	I hope that my noble friend and the noble Lord will feel that that is a clear response to the concerns that they expressed to us in that meeting. We were impressed by what was said to us and have reacted accordingly. The Government are determined to overcome the real problems that were identified. We do not want any planning blight on those very useful services in the next few months.
	I hope that my noble friend Lady Thornton, who raised the matter as a probing amendment, will be satisfied with my answer.

Lord Dholakia: I have listened carefully to the Minister and I accept his explanation. I did not expect any concessions from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, but I thought that my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, might fall for it, but he did not. I thank him for his explanation. We may come back to the issue later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Habgood: I thank the Minister for the action that has been taken. We shall let him know the response of those to whom he has written. If need be, we shall come back to him for some further fallback action, should they not respond as we all hope that they will.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 72 not moved.]
	Clause 18 agreed to.
	Clause 19 [Property]:
	[Amendments Nos. 73 to 75 not moved.]
	Clause 19 agreed to.
	Schedule 3 agreed to.
	Clause 20 [Transfer of staff]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 76:
	Page 9, line 28, leave out from ("any") to ("have") in line 29 and insert ("directions about consultation given by the appropriate Minister").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 77 not moved.]
	Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to.
	Clause 23 [Transfer of staff in consequence of arrangements under Part I]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 78:
	Page 11, line 27, leave out from ("any") to ("have") in line 28 and insert ("directions about consultation given by the appropriate Minister").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 79:
	After Clause 23, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:PROVISION FOR THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN
	(".--(1) The Protection of Children Act 1999 ("the 1999 Act") shall have effect as if the Service were a child care organisation within the meaning of that Act.
	(2) Arrangements which the Service makes with an organisation under section 13(1) must provide that, before selecting an individual to be employed under the arrangements in a child care position the organisation--
	(a) must ascertain whether the individual is included in any of the lists mentioned in section 7(1) of the 1999 Act, and
	(b) if he is included in any of those lists, must not select him for that employment.
	(3) Such arrangements must provide that, if at any time the organisation has power to refer a relevant individual to the Secretary of State under section 2 of the 1999 Act (inclusion in list on reference following disciplinary action etc.), the organisation must so refer him.
	In this subsection "relevant individual" means an individual who is or has been employed in a child care position under the arrangements.
	(4) In this section "child care position" and "employment" have the same meanings as in the 1999 Act.").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 24 [Interpretation of Part I]:

Lord Bach: moved Amendment No. 80:
	Page 11, leave out lines 39 and 40.
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 81:
	Page 11, leave out lines 42 to 44.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: This amendment is consequential to Amendment No. 49 and the amendments to Clause 24 are consequential on the creation in Clause 9 as amended of a generic category of hostels, as we have already discussed. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
	Clause 25 agreed to.

Lord Bach: I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	House resumed.
	House adjourned at three minutes past eleven o'clock.